On 3/29/20 4:30 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Would you be willing to hide a macro like CLANG_NO_DIV_BY_ZERO in a
header somewhere so it can be used in tests like test-math.h?
It'd be better to have the test fail with Clang, since Clang does have a bug
here.
There should be some way you can tell
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 7:21 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:59 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> > > sanitizers",
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:59 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> > sanitizers", https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746.html.
>
> The way I interpret their answer
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermai
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> sanitizers", https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746.html.
The way I interpret their answer
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138747.html
is:
1) You need to distinguish i
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:24 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
> >
> > test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
>
> The code performs a division 1.0 / 0.0. This is a valid operation in
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
>
> test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
The code performs a division 1.0 / 0.0. This is a valid operation in
IEEE 854. It must produce a HUGE_VAL.
Surely you can tell the sanitizer to ignore this?
Bruno
This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
