From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14324 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2011 18:24:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 14304 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2011 18:24:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mta41.charter.net (HELO mta41.charter.net) (216.33.127.83) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:23:57 +0000 Received: from imp09 ([10.20.200.9]) by mta41.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.02.04 201-2219-117-106-20090629) with ESMTP id <20110611182356.ZEAV23044.mta41.charter.net@imp09>; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:23:56 -0400 Received: from wt05 ([209.225.8.45]) by imp09 with smtp.charter.net id uiPw1g0010yHwtd05iPw88; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:23:56 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=1b2X7W/SifksZeClH/haT1SUt4udqxFGF00pZw2/jJk= c=1 sm=1 a=RWnAaV5CWw0A:10 a=cWQ9uGxeeyIA:10 a=tCKlK9Mz1gsA:10 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=7foaGX4aamqiU+FwIDL1IQ==:17 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=b1WTurngCQdVf5YG9i0A:9 a=W0Kh9_0TxO6izPcX6toA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=hUswqBWy9Q8A:10 a=7foaGX4aamqiU+FwIDL1IQ==:117 Received: from [76.178.169.24] by enhanced.charter.net with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:23:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:01:00 -0000 From: jvdelisle@charter.net To: Thomas Henlich Cc: Janne Blomqvist , gfortran , gcc patches Message-ID: <1d742438.72a27.1307ff22e72.Webtop.45@charter.net> Subject: Re: [patch, libgfortran] PR48906 Wrong rounding results with -m32 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Laszlo Mail 3 X-SID: 45 Content-Disposition: inline Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00925.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Thomas Henlich wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 14:41, jerry DeLisle > wrote: >> This was established as solution to PR48488 where we had two choices >> for >> selecting the significant digits. Nine significant digits was >> established as >> a requirement to guarantee round trip in all cases. The >> char4_iunit_1.f03 >> test case was revised because after we corrected the formatting in >> PR48906, >> it started to fail and I observed the test case was looking for the >> wrong >> number of significant digits. >> >> Based on this, I would suggest we leave it as I have it, which is >> correct. > > I'm afraid it's not. > > 1.23450002E-06 has nine significant digits. That's how it should be. > > We don't want 1PG16.9E2 editing for list-directed and G0, > but G16.9E2 for the F editing range and 1PE16.8E2 editing for the E > range. > > This is to make sure the result always has nine significant digits, > whether in the F or E range. My bad, I counted across wrong. Working on it. Coffee deficiency in the early morning. ;) Jerry Jerry