[Bug java/24454] New: Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec

[Bug java/24454] New: Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec

[dpollock at acm dot org]

Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
compiler into ECJ using GCJ.  The goal was to provide an executable form of
Eclipse's compiler.  Unfortunately, the effort had to be abandoned because the
resulting ECJ compiler would fail the floating point section of Java
Compatibility Kit (JCK).


-- 
           Summary: Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: major
          Priority: P2
         Component: java
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dpollock at acm dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-20 16:34 -------
Is this on x86 if so there is a known issue.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-20 16:40 -------
Subject: Re:   New: Floating point in GCJ does not follow spec

> 
> Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
> compiler into ECJ using GCJ.  The goal was to provide an executable form of
> Eclipse's compiler.  Unfortunately, the effort had to be abandoned because the
> resulting ECJ compiler would fail the floating point section of Java
> Compatibility Kit (JCK).

One more thing, is how did it fail?

You were compiling to native, correct?

Note fp is not exact unless you are using strictfp (which GCJ does not
implement currently).

-- Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-10-20 17:03:27
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-20 17:06 -------
I think this is more of a duplicate of PR 10632.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-21 10:23 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
> compiler into ECJ using GCJ.  The goal was to provide an executable form of
> Eclipse's compiler.  Unfortunately, the effort had to be abandoned because the
> resulting ECJ compiler would fail the floating point section of Java
> Compatibility Kit (JCK).

It would be nice if you could at least indicate what kind
of non-compliance you are talking of here. Is it strictfp,
accuracy of results, rounding of floating-point literals,
or something else? Of course, you should not reproduce 
tests verbatim from the JCK, but please provide some 
indication of what you're talking about in this bug report.

For example, are you talking of JLS3 section 4.2.4 here?
If yes, can you please elaborate exactly how using GCJ
as the compiler to compile your compiler is affecting its
status w.r.t. the JCK?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-21 10:26 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> 
> It would be nice if you could at least indicate what kind
> of non-compliance you are talking of here. Is it strictfp,
> accuracy of results, rounding of floating-point literals,
> or something else? Of course, you should not reproduce 
> tests verbatim from the JCK, but please provide some 
> indication of what you're talking about in this bug report.

Sorry, I just noticed that aph was the one who changed
the summary to lack of strictfp support. So I guess he
knows what you were talking about in the bug report.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-21 10:58 -------
gcj doesn't support strcitfp.  The reserved word is allowed but ignored.

The main casualty of this is x86, where we fail some tests because of excess
precision.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca]

------- Comment #7 from olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca  2005-10-21 12:46 -------
The problem seemed to be with precision in the floating point literal. When
converting a floating point literal to its double/float value, it ended up
having an unexpected value.


-- 

olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |olivier_thomann at sympatico
                   |                            |dot ca


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-21 15:14 -------
The bug about incorrect parsing and rounding of floating-point
literals is PR java/23432 and that about no support for strictfp
is PR java/10632. If this bug report is about either of these,
it can be closed as a duplicate of the respective previous
bug. If it is about both, it can be left as a "meta bug". If
it is about neither of the two, then please provide some 
details and change the summary appropriately.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca]

------- Comment #9 from olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca  2005-10-21 19:04 -------
Looking at the two other bug reports, it looks like this might be a duplicate
of PR java/10632. So feel free to close is as a dup.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454

[Bug java/24454] GCJ does not correctly support strictfp

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-30 13:36 -------


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10632 ***


-- 

aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454