From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joseph_myers@mentor.com>
Received: from esa1.mentor.iphmx.com (esa1.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.129.153])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7308939B5C7F;
 Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:56:06 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7308939B5C7F
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=codesourcery.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com
IronPort-SDR: YZ/INz2ih1VL+IkwDSCdW6FN7ViOnwvKLTvA8OoHRg1OQKpsczUflVNaBkdBOdPlA5rttdZf/A
 U1S4/ItVqds7MOW4rhovxtp1Bfit68nvrD2QELKFLNMFmX9Jx+9iKq+58v26+JDFbvJW187j0K
 tSf214AUPwCIpM1q/Lw0YKg1eaVwnPdqLc7IUfA/gpSNWMochhf2GMfQm2frvbucZoXSsfhjOx
 +0pBrB3cMXYkBY2w+vskZAmc9RFx6JcsR8R0lAKwTaLupq7UnMZ7OVo4TPDceBYYlA/th62GPC
 drMUKtapcSNLBWTnp4PhYBGh
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,338,1620720000"; d="scan'208";a="67438805"
Received: from orw-gwy-01-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.165])
 by esa1.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2021 08:56:05 -0800
IronPort-SDR: xCsCwCZ9TULYN/6+Rp6SZtgpjfRZr2QljUhp/L5y7x7s6jQHaG4ritdOa/ni2fZNErB9/VtIVG
 D3Jn4ZAb7ofDWVq1DSwtm0I6BzLCrHK9ugCMke7cjqJk0L1lqYhMokj6V87Xd9WyON1dkvxz8b
 K9SSU3p0XHpa58dz5AAWRYcX++V6dPzDPlI5fV+j2I6AZ1PsO3HfwuANrSnQT5peSf1rPISsqT
 t7UEzvZT3VvDPeABx+4P6A6+icpmGNy0sL/ePCVA1x+ZW8zM+8nas2xxATL/FaSaH3anSPk6X3
 eaU=
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:55:59 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk
To: Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak@t-online.de>
CC: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>, Adhemerval Zanella
 <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>, <libc-help@sourceware.org>,
 <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/2nd version] Re: nextafter() about an order of magnitude
 slower than trivial implementation
In-Reply-To: <AEC2AFE4A2D94C449A5ED31A392459C0@H270>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2108201654040.407143@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <D7077C5619F74049B8890508155291B2@H270>
 <20210818125119.GH25257@arm.com> <BEF317B3F18B447F8BAE9B550BE5C237@H270>
 <741b2c48-a754-51c5-cb72-a2f97795e30f@linaro.org>
 <AEC2AFE4A2D94C449A5ED31A392459C0@H270>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90]
X-ClientProxiedBy: SVR-IES-MBX-07.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.7) To
 svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3119.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-help@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-help mailing list <libc-help.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-help>,
 <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-help/>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-help>,
 <mailto:libc-help-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:56:07 -0000

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote:

>         if(ax > 0x7ffull << 53)         /* x is nan */
>             return x;
>         if(ay > 0x7ffull << 53)         /* y is nan */
>             return y;

How has this been tested?  I'd have expected it to fail the nextafter 
tests in the glibc testsuite (libm-test-nextafter.inc), because they 
verify that sNaN arguments produce a qNaN result with the "invalid" 
exception raised, and this looks like it would just return an sNaN 
argument unchanged.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com