math-emu: Fix signalling of underflow and inexact while packing result.
I'm trying to move the powerpc math-emu code to use the include/math-emu bits.
In doing so I've been using TestFloat to see how good or bad we are
doing. For the most part the current math-emu code that PPC uses has
a number of issues that the code in include/math-emu seems to solve
(plus bugs we've had for ever that no one every realized).
Anyways, I've come across a case that we are flagging underflow and
inexact because we think we have a denormalized result from a double
precision divide:
000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE
soft: 001.0000000000000 ..... syst: 001.0000000000000 ...ux
What it looks like is the results out of FP_DIV_D are:
D:
sign: 0
mantissa: 01000000 00000000
exp: -1023 (0)
The problem seems like we aren't normalizing the result and bumping the exp.
Now that I'm digging into this a bit I'm thinking my issue has to do with
the fix DaveM put in place from back in Aug 2007 (commit
405849610f
):
[MATH-EMU]: Fix underflow exception reporting.
2) we ended up rounding back up to normal (this is the case where
we set the exponent to 1 and set the fraction to zero), this
should set inexact too
...
Another example, "0x0.0000000000001p-1022 / 16.0", should signal both
inexact and underflow. The cpu implementations and ieee1754
literature is very clear about this. This is case #2 above.
Here is the distilled glibc test case from Jakub Jelinek which prompted that
commit:
--------------------
#include <float.h>
#include <fenv.h>
#include <stdio.h>
volatile double d = DBL_MIN;
volatile double e = 0x0.0000000000001p-1022;
volatile double f = 16.0;
int
main (void)
{
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
d /= f;
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
e /= f;
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
return 0;
}
--------------------
It looks like the case I have we are exact before rounding, but think it
looks like the rounding case since it appears as if "overflow is set".
000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE = 001.0000000000000
I think the following adds the check for my case and still works for the
issue your commit was trying to resolve.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
Родитель
d41e2d7317
Коммит
930cc144a0
|
@ -139,18 +139,27 @@ do { \
|
|||
if (X##_e <= _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs) \
|
||||
{ \
|
||||
_FP_FRAC_SRS_##wc(X, X##_e, _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs); \
|
||||
_FP_ROUND(wc, X); \
|
||||
if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \
|
||||
& (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \
|
||||
{ \
|
||||
X##_e = 1; \
|
||||
_FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \
|
||||
FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \
|
||||
} \
|
||||
else \
|
||||
{ \
|
||||
X##_e = 0; \
|
||||
_FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \
|
||||
_FP_ROUND(wc, X); \
|
||||
if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \
|
||||
& (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \
|
||||
{ \
|
||||
X##_e = 1; \
|
||||
_FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \
|
||||
FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \
|
||||
} \
|
||||
else \
|
||||
{ \
|
||||
X##_e = 0; \
|
||||
_FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \
|
||||
} \
|
||||
} \
|
||||
if ((FP_CUR_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_INEXACT) || \
|
||||
(FP_TRAPPING_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_UNDERFLOW)) \
|
||||
|
|
Загрузка…
Ссылка в новой задаче