> On Aug 12, 2017, at 14:45, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) <yaneurab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:55, Ryan Libby <rli...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > … > >> A few possible quick fixes: >> >> - Change the {arm64,riscv,sparc64}/include/float.h LDBL_MAX_EXP >> definitions from (+16384) to 16384. >> >> - Change HALF_LDBL_MAX from >> #define HALF_LDBL_MAX __CONCAT(__CONCAT(0x0.8p, LDBL_MAX_EXP), L) >> to >> #if LDBL_MAX_EXP != 0x4000 >> #error "Unsupported long double format" >> #endif >> #define HALF_LDBL_MAX 0x0.8p16384L >> >> - Change the HALF_LDBL_MAX constant to a variable constructed with >> LD80C(), I think with >> LD80C(0x8000000000000000, 16383, 5.9486574767861588254e+4931L) >> but this also requires #error for LDBL_MAX_EXP != 0x4000, so not >> really any better than the above. >> >> I think I will back the patch out for now and go back to review. > > The issue is an inconsistency with how LDBL_MAX_EXP is defined in the MD > headers:

## Advertising

* is an -> is due to an > $ grep -r LDBL_MAX_EXP sys/sparc64/ > sys/sparc64/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP (+16384) > $ grep -r LDBL_MAX_EXP sys/x86/ > sys/x86/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP 16384 Here are the full gamut of definitions for LDBL_MAX_EXP. It seems that sparc64 isn’t the only architecture using this pattern: $ grep -r DBL_MAX_EXP sys/*/include sys/arm/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/arm/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP DBL_MAX_EXP sys/arm64/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/arm64/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP (+16384) sys/mips/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/mips/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP DBL_MAX_EXP sys/powerpc/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/powerpc/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP DBL_MAX_EXP sys/riscv/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/riscv/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP (+16384) sys/sparc64/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/sparc64/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP (+16384) sys/x86/include/float.h:#define DBL_MAX_EXP 1024 sys/x86/include/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP 16384 It might also be an inconsistency with how clang vs gcc [4.2.1] handles __CONCAT, and what -std= flags are passed to ${CC} in the Makefile, since the implementation is predicated by whether or not it’s C++ or __STDC__ is defined. There might be an update that we can grab from NetBSD (since the macro originated there). I don’t understand [right now] why the (+foo) form is used *shrugs*. Cheers, -Ngie

**
signature.asc**

*Description:* Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail