From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 3B32238708EC; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 16:45:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3B32238708EC
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case
 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 16:45:57 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98384-4-9qPvr79pNc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98384-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98384-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 16:45:58 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98384

--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FWIW, here's a complete corrected version of the Solaris test in comment #13
which should be fully free of warnings:

#include <cstdio>

int main() {
  printf("%La\n", 1.0L);      // trailing zeros present (not nonconforming,=
 but
unexpected by the libstdc++ testcase)
  printf("%.1000Lf\n", 1.0L); // output contains e+00 (nonconforming?)
  printf("%Lf\n", 1e1000L);   // output is in scientific notation
(nonconforming?)
}


(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #16)
> > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #14)
> > > > --- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>=20
> [..]
> > > Which according to ISO C 2017, p.228, is allowed: "trailing zeros may
> > > be omitted".
> >=20
> > Ack.
>=20
> Darwin also produces the trailing zeros.
>=20
> For the #c13 test with Jakub's correction (x86_64-darwin16):
>=20
> 0x8p-3

Thanks.  Trailing zeros in the second line of output are expected (and
required).  It's the hex form (on the first line of output) that the libstd=
c++
testcase doesn't expect to contain trailing zeros, so I don't anticipate any
issues with printf on Darwin.  So my hope is that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565726.html resolves
the long_double.cc FAIL on 64-bit Darwin as well.=