From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 958E13835404; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:42:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 958E13835404 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" 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 15:42:51 +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: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:42:51 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98384 --- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka --- [...] > So: > > 1. The hex-form conversion specifier doesn't trim trailing zeroes. Which according to ISO C 2017, p.228, is allowed: "trailing zeros may be omitted". > 2. The fixed-form conversion specifier sometimes outputs the > scientific-notation suffix "e+00". This is unexpected indeed. > 3. The fixed-form conversion specifier sometimes outputs the scientific f= orm. Same. However, g++ -Wall complains: pr98384.cc: In function =E2=80=98int main()=E2=80=99: pr98384.cc:5:13: warning: unknown conversion type character =E2=80=98.=E2= =80=99 in format [-Wformat=3D] 5 | printf("%L.1000f\n", 1.0L); | ^ pr98384.cc:5:10: warning: too many arguments for format [-Wformat-extra-arg= s] 5 | printf("%L.1000f\n", 1.0L); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ Compiling the equivalent C version with Studio 12.6 cc gives: "pr98384.c", line 6: warning: conversion of hex floating-point constant can= not be represented exactly in its evaluation format > Each of the to_chars/printf mismatches I've looked at seem to be caused b= y one > of these three issues. Should we just XFAIL the test on Solaris? Only if it's clear that those outputs are in violation of the standard and the inputs are valid: the warnings above cast some doubt upon the latter.=