[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 12:23 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 08:54 --- Subject: Bug 17603 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-17 08:54:02 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/i386: i

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 16:33 --- Patch here: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2004-12-16 15:46 --- Patch for the x86-64 long double complex part submitted. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17603

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2004-12-16 12:59 --- This happens when the ABI is (was) imprecise. Earlier versions did not special case long double complex, but the current version does. Hence I have a patch ready that partly reverses the original change (actuall

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 01:13 --- The patch which caused it was . But if I read the patch, this sounds like GCC before 4.0.0 was not implementing the ABI right. -- What

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 01:09 --- This patch caused it: +2004-07-09 Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + + * config/i386/i386.c (classify_argument): Treat V1xx modes the same as + their base modes. CTImode, TCmode, and XCmode

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 01:05 --- Narrowed it down to "2004-07-10 00:00" and "2004-07-10 01:00". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17603

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-15 23:51 --- Thanks Steven. This bus is really a show stopper, in my opinion. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17603

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15 22:07 --- The bug appears between "2004-07-10 00:00" and "2004-07-10 12:00". I hope to reduce it a bit further to pinpoint the offending patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17603

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2004-12-05 21:24 --- There does appear to be some form of ABI change on x86_64. When compiling with gcc-3.4.3 the results of cpowl are assumed to be returned on the x87 stack, but when compiling with 4.0.0 (20041205 experimental) th

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-05 21:02 --- > Looking at: > > it looks likes it is only for -m32 case. Look better: is the other way 'round: -m32 is ok, 64-bit is broken (I'm 100% sure because o

[Bug target/17603] [4.0 Regression] cpowf and cpowl give wrong results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-05 20:42 --- Looking at: it looks likes it is only for -m32 case. I think this is a target problem now. As ppc64 is fixed at least according to