On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what kind of test you have in mind, so I added a runtime
> > > test. I
> > > am just guessing that it probably fails on alpha because of PR 5
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
I don't know what kind of test you have in mind, so I added a runtime test. I
am just guessing that it probably fails on alpha because of PR 58757, I can't
test. Computing d+d may be even more likely to trigger
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> I don't know what kind of test you have in mind, so I added a runtime test. I
> am just guessing that it probably fails on alpha because of PR 58757, I can't
> test. Computing d+d may be even more likely to trigger potential issues, if
> that's the goal.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
according to the C++ standard, numeric_limits::denorm_min should return min
(not 0) when there are no denormals.
Tested with bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I also tested a basic
make all-gcc
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> according to the C++ standard, numeric_limits::denorm_min should return min
> (not 0) when there are no denormals.
>
> Tested with bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I also tested a basic
> make all-gcc for vax (only target without denor
Hello,
according to the C++ standard, numeric_limits::denorm_min should return
min (not 0) when there are no denormals.
Tested with bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu. I also tested a basic
make all-gcc for vax (only target without denormals apparently) and the
macro did change as expec
