On 17 April 2018 at 22:27, Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> wrote: > BTW I just checked with -t host on an IBM Power8, and we get > the same 1049 flag errors we get with -t soft plus two additional ones: > > +A 0xffb00000, expected: 0x7fa00000, returned: 0x7fa00000, \ > expected exceptions: i, returned: none > +error: flags mismatch for input @ ibm/Basic-Types-Inputs.fptest:382: > +b32A =0 S -> S i
That's Abs of an SNaN; the test expects Invalid, which is wrong, because IEEE754 says absolute-value is a "quiet-computational operation" that never signals an exception. What's odd is that we don't report that error for the softfloat implementation! I also don't understand why the expected value isn't just the input value with the sign bit flipped. > (...) > +cff 0xffb00000, expected: 0x7ff8000000000000, returned: 0x7ff4000000000000, \ > expected exceptions: i, returned: none > +error: flags mismatch for input @ ibm/Basic-Types-Inputs.fptest:26170: > +b32b64cff =0 S -> Q i SNaN conversion from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here I agree with the test -- we should quieten the NaN and raise Invalid -- which implies that the hardware is wrong ?!? thanks -- PMM
