[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2009-03-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #16 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-28 21:16 
---
Subject: Bug 33595

Author: danglin
Date: Sat Mar 28 21:15:45 2009
New Revision: 145209

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145209
Log:
PR fortran/33595
* intrinsics/c99_functions.c (round): Use floor instead of ceil.
Revise checks to round up.
(roundf): Likewise.


Modified:
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2009-03-28 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #15 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-28 09:41 
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Patch submitted:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01221.html

Just a note: the patch was reviewed and okayed by Tobias. You can apply to
trunk.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-29 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-29 17:11 
---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01221.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-28 22:14 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Subject: Re:  FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90  -O0  execution test
> 
> > See libm on FreeBSD.
> > 
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/msun/src/s_roundf.c
> 
> So, the ceilf implementation was changed to a floorf implementation
> to correct rounding issues about three years ago...
> 
> I'll give it a try.  The default rounding mode on hpux is nearest.
> 

It also uses your idea or something very similar.  Notice the
changes in the if-statements.

if (x >= 0.0) {
-   t = ceilf(x);
-   if (t - x > 0.5)
-   t -= 1.0;
+   t = floorf(x);
+   if (t - x <= -0.5)
+   t += 1.0;
return (t);
} else {
-   t = ceilf(-x);
-   if (t + x > 0.5)
-   t -= 1.0;
+   t = floorf(-x);
+   if (t + x <= -0.5)
+   t += 1.0;
return (-t);
}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 


--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2008-12-28 
21:48 ---
Subject: Re:  FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90  -O0  execution test

> See libm on FreeBSD.
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/msun/src/s_roundf.c

So, the ceilf implementation was changed to a floorf implementation
to correct rounding issues about three years ago...

I'll give it a try.  The default rounding mode on hpux is nearest.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-28 21:02 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> I think the tests in roundf need to be revised to minimize rounding
> issues.  Patch attached.  This fixes the test on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
> 

See libm on FreeBSD.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/msun/src/s_roundf.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-28 20:45:04
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 


--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2008-12-28 
20:39 ---
Subject: Re:  FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90  -O0
execution test

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> The value calculated for b = nearest(0.5,-1.0) is 0.4997 (raw 0x3eff).
> The code uses the roundf implementation in c99_functions.

I think the tests in roundf need to be revised to minimize rounding
issues.  Patch attached.  This fixes the test on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.

Dave


--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2008-12-28 
20:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=16996)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16996&action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-28 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-28 20:25 ---
The value calculated for b = nearest(0.5,-1.0) is 0.4997 (raw 0x3eff).
The code uses the roundf implementation in c99_functions.

float
roundf(float x)
{
   float t;
   if (!isfinite (x))
 return (x);

   if (x >= 0.0) 
{
  t = ceilf(x);
  if (t - x > 0.5)
t -= 1.0;
  return (t);
} 
   else 
{
  t = ceilf(-x);
  if (t + x > 0.5)
t -= 1.0;
  return (-t);
}
}

The call to ceilf returns t = 1 (raw 0x3f80).  The result of t - x
is 0.5 (raw 0x3f00).  So, roundf returns 1 and the test fails.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-03 Thread billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #7 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-04 05:11 
---
I missed fortran/33177 - nint() on Cygwin. Sorry.


-- 

billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|billingd at gcc dot gnu dot |
   |org |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2008-12-03 Thread billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #6 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-04 03:04 
---
Just had a look at this with cvs gfortran under cygwin.

A slightly modified test

program intrinsic_integer
  implicit none

  call test (0.0, (/0, 0, 0, 0/))
  call test (0.3, (/0, 1, 0, 0/))
  call test (0.7, (/0, 1, 0, 1/))
  call test (-0.3, (/-1, 0, 0, 0/))
  call test (-0.7, (/-1, 0, 0, -1/))
contains
subroutine test(val, res)
  real :: val
  integer, dimension(4) :: res

  if ((floor(val) .ne. res(1)) .or. (ceiling(val) .ne. res(2)) &
  .or. (int(val) .ne. res(3)) .or. (nint(val) .ne. res(4))) then
 write(6,'(a,f4.1,a,i2,a,i2)') 'nint(', val, ')=', nint(val), &
   ' require ', res(4)
  end if
end subroutine
end program

at -O0, -O1,  -O2 and -O3 gives

nint( 0.7)= 0 require  1  
nint(-0.7)= 0 require -1

The C test program at #1, compiled with gcc-3.4.4 or CVS gcc 4.4.0 20081128
(experimental) [trunk revision 142255] gives "0 1 1" as expected.



-- 

billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||billingd at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2007-12-21 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-22 07:37 
---
nint_2.f90 is also broken on Cygwin.  Should we make that a separate PR?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2007-10-01 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 


--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2007-10-01 
17:29 ---
Subject: Re:  FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90  -O0  execution test

> Does hpux10 have round()? And does it have ceil()? (I assume that the last
> answer is yes, because it's ANSI C, but hpux could surprise me again.)

It doesn't have round.  It has ceil, floor and rint.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2007-10-01 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-01 16:39 
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> lround and nextafter aren't available on hpux10.

Does hpux10 have round()? And does it have ceil()? (I assume that the last
answer is yes, because it's ANSI C, but hpux could surprise me again.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2007-10-01 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 


--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2007-10-01 
16:33 ---
Subject: Re:  FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90  -O0  execution test

> It should print "0 1 1". If it prints "1 1 1", then your system libm has a 
> bug.

It prints "0 1 1" on hpux11.  lround and nextafter aren't available on
hpux10.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595

[Bug fortran/33595] FAIL: gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 -O0 execution test

2007-10-01 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-01 13:13 
---
Can you compile and run the following C test code? (gcc -std=c99, or the system
compiler)

#include 
#include 
int main (void)
{
  printf ("%ld %ld %ld\n", lround (nextafter(0.5,-9.0)), lround (0.5), lround
(nextafter(0.5,9.0)));
}

It should print "0 1 1". If it prints "1 1 1", then your system libm has a bug.
(HP-UX is not alone there, as we already discovered such a problem in AIX and
powerpc-glibc, see PR33271). In that case, you might want to file a bug-report
to HP, and I will xfail the testcase on hppa-hpux.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33595