> I'm not opposed to merging the test change, but I couldn't figure out
> where in C the implicit conversion was coming from: as far as I can
> tell the macros don't introduce any (it's "return _float16 *
> _float16"), I'd had the patch open since last night but couldn't
> figure it out.
>
> We
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:59:13 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/23 07:50, Robin Dapp wrote:
But if it's a float16 precision issue then I would have expected both
the computations for the lhs and rhs values to have suffered
similarly.
Yeah, right. I didn't look closely
On 8/16/23 07:50, Robin Dapp wrote:
But if it's a float16 precision issue then I would have expected both
the computations for the lhs and rhs values to have suffered
similarly.
Yeah, right. I didn't look closely enough. The problem is not the
reduction but the additional return-value
> But if it's a float16 precision issue then I would have expected both
> the computations for the lhs and rhs values to have suffered
> similarly.
Yeah, right. I didn't look closely enough. The problem is not the
reduction but the additional return-value conversion that is omitted
when
LGTM
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-08-15 23:49
To: gcc-patches; palmer; Kito Cheng; jeffreyalaw; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix reduc_strict_run-1 test case.
Hi,
this patch changes the equality check for the reduc_strict_run-1
testcase
On 8/15/23 19:21, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
For float/double, the in-order fold-left reduction produced the same
result as scalar codes.
But for _Float16 is not, I think the issue is not the reduction issue,
is float 16 precision issue.
But if it's a float16 precision issue then I would
; palmer; Kito Cheng; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix reduc_strict_run-1 test case.
On 8/15/23 09:49, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch changes the equality check for the reduc_strict_run-1
> testcase from == to fabs () < EPS. The FAIL only occurs
On 8/15/23 09:49, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi,
this patch changes the equality check for the reduc_strict_run-1
testcase from == to fabs () < EPS. The FAIL only occurs with
_Float16 but I'd argue approximate equality is preferable for all
float modes.
Regards
Robin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
Hi,
this patch changes the equality check for the reduc_strict_run-1
testcase from == to fabs () < EPS. The FAIL only occurs with
_Float16 but I'd argue approximate equality is preferable for all
float modes.
Regards
Robin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
