public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "walter.mascarenhas at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/64497] std::scalbln does not round correctly for long doubles
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-64497-4-iSd7s1lOdT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-64497-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497

--- Comment #2 from Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas at gmail dot com> ---
What if there is a difference in the expected behavior
for this function in  C and C++11? Is it not up to g++
for implementing what is mandated in C++11? (This
is not a rhetorical question, I really do not know the answer.)

In http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/scalbn.3.html it
is written that scalbln should return 0 in case of underflow:

"If the result underflows, a range error occurs, and the functions
return zero, with a sign the same as *x*."

On the other hand,
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/scalbn states that

"If a range error due to underflow occurs, the correct result (after
rounding) is returned."

I looked at the standard (N3797.pdf) but did not find anything
specific about std::scalbln.
If there is indeed a discrepancy in the definitions of scalbln in C
and C++11 then there
may be no bug in libm, and my vendor will not change it.

I do not have a copy of the ISO 60599 standard, and I do not know whether
the content of the pages http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/scalbn.3.html and
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/scalbn are compatible with
any standards. Therefore I am in no position to argue,
but maybe you could think a bit longer about this..














On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:29 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> GCC just calls the scalnlnl() function in libm, so it's not a GCC bug, and
> is
> not specific to C++ either. I suggest you report it to your libc vendor.
>
> Complete testcase in C:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <math.h>
> #include <assert.h>
>
> int main()
> {
>   long double di = scalbnl(1.1L, -16446);
>   assert( di != 0.0L );
>   long double dl = scalblnl(1.1L, -16446L);
>   assert( dl != 0.0L );
> }
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
> You reported the bug.
>


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-01-05 13:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-05 10:40 [Bug c++/64497] New: " walter.mascarenhas at gmail dot com
2015-01-05 12:29 ` [Bug c++/64497] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-05 13:11 ` walter.mascarenhas at gmail dot com [this message]
2015-01-05 14:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-05 14:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-06  4:33 ` cubbi at cubbi dot org
2015-01-06  9:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-64497-4-iSd7s1lOdT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).