Hi,
On Thursday, 2015-08-13 11:36:11 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> ...or, developers be taught about the C++ Standard? ;) It is quite clear on
> this: "If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined."
> ([expr.mul]/4)
Lame excuses of a standards committee not being able t
On 08/12/2015 05:53 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
On Wednesday, 2015-08-12 17:48:57 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
The new test code triggers a division by zero now (as seen with
-fsanitize=undefined):
First, that shouldn't matter as it produces a double INF value.
I wonder though why that didn't propag
Hi again,
On Wednesday, 2015-08-12 17:48:57 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > > The new test code triggers a division by zero now (as seen with
> > > -fsanitize=undefined):
> >
> > First, that shouldn't matter as it produces a double INF value.
>
> I wonder though why that didn't propagate into the
Hi,
On Wednesday, 2015-08-12 17:36:09 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > The new test code triggers a division by zero now (as seen with
> > -fsanitize=undefined):
>
> First, that shouldn't matter as it produces a double INF value.
I wonder though why that didn't propagate into the += operation and
Hi Stephan,
On Wednesday, 2015-08-12 14:42:18 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> The new test code triggers a division by zero now (as seen with
> -fsanitize=undefined):
First, that shouldn't matter as it produces a double INF value.
Second, we might want to either use the div() function there to
On 08/12/2015 12:22 PM, Łukasz Hryniuk wrote:
commit 0a726cb29936b61b8f05b0863e24db212a0e6166
Author: Łukasz Hryniuk
Date: Tue Aug 11 23:18:28 2015 +0200
tdf#89387 test for CHITEST function
Change-Id: Ifff9367e56c357f3d5026ecbf7e984368428e074
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreo
