> >> We won't get zero from exponential function, so expecting zero result
> >> is flawed anyway.
> >>
> >> If we would like to introduce universal epsilon comparisons into the
> >> testsuite, then please read [1]. Being overly pedantic, the definition
> >> should be "|(v[i] - u.a[i]) / v[i]|", as stated in [2].
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/comparing-floating-point-numbers-2012-edition/
> >> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_error
> >>
> >
> > We get zero from testing zero-masking. Currently we produce 0/0 = NaN.
> > Comparison with NaN is always false, so tests pass. But I think that
> > this should be fixed to avoid division by zero. As for being more
> > pedantic about comparison, I doubt that its useful, when we use
> > 0.0001 as eps.
>
> In this case, please add simple check for zero, with the above
> comment. We don't test exp function, but masking.
>
Something like this?
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
index 3209039..a96a103 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
@@ -58,6 +58,16 @@ check_rough_##UINON_TYPE (UINON_TYPE u, const VALUE_TYPE *v,
\
\
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (u.a); i++) \
{ \
+ /* We will always have v[i] == 0 == u.a[i] for some i, \
+ when we test zero-masking. */ \
+ if (v[i] == 0.0 && u.a[i] == 0.0) \
+ continue; \
+ if (v[i] == 0.0 && u.a[i] != 0.0) \
+ { \
+ err++; \
+ PRINTF ("%i: " FMT " != " FMT "\n", \
+ i, v[i], u.a[i]); \
+ } \
VALUE_TYPE rel_err = (u.a[i] - v[i]) / v[i]; \
if (((rel_err < 0) ? -rel_err : rel_err) > eps) \
{ \
--
1.8.3.1
