Hi,
On Sun, Aug 25 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> I have made the respective changes and fixed the indentations and it
> passes the testing.
Great, please send the patch (to me and to the mailing list too), so
that I can commit it.
Thanks,
Martin
I have made the respective changes and fixed the indentations and it
passes the testing.
> I encourage a followup looking for and fixing further places in the source
> tree that handle round-to-integer function families (ceil / floor / trunc
> / round / rint / nearbyint) and should handle roundeve
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > I think you should have at least four tests of sign of zero result
> > (arguments -0.5, -0.0, 0.0 and 0.5). Probably also tests of values
> > between +/- 0.5 and 0, e.g. test -0.25 and 0.25 as well.
>
> Okay, I have made the following changes and again
> I think you should have at least four tests of sign of zero result
> (arguments -0.5, -0.0, 0.0 and 0.5). Probably also tests of values
> between +/- 0.5 and 0, e.g. test -0.25 and 0.25 as well.
Okay, I have made the following changes and again, the tests pass for roundeven.
void
real_roundeve
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> > I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via
> > -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0.
>
> Would the following overhaul be acceptable as the condition is
> specialized for -0.5 and +0.5 only. This se
> I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via
> -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0.
Would the following overhaul be acceptable as the condition is
specialized for -0.5 and +0.5 only. This seems to solve the problem. I
did test the roundeven
