| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This was originally done for testing purposes, but after #126315 we now
do testing through GitHub Actions and should be instead using the
optimization setting chosen by the user.
|
|
This PR aims to add the groundwork to test the precision of libc complex
functions against MPC. I took `cargf` as a test to verify that the infra
works fine.
|
|
Proper fix for the temporary fix in #114696
|
|
Refer section 7.3.9.5 of ISO/IEC 9899:2023
|
|
Refer section 7.3.9.4 of ISO/IEC 9899:2023
|
|
- migrate more `-O3` to `${libc_opt_high_flag}`
- workaround a issue with `LLP64` in test. The overflow testing is
guarded by a constexpr but the literal overflow itself will still
trigger warnings.
Notice that for math smoke test, for some reasons, the
`${libc_opt_high_flag}` will be passed into `lld-link` which confuses
the linker so there are still some warnings leftover there. I can
investigate more when I have time.
|
|
(#113300)
I have commented out the test for `neg_zero`(creal) because :
1. real(neg_zero + 0.0i) equals zero.
2. real(neg_zero - 0.0i) equals neg_zero.
I am not sure if this is the intended behaviour.
[EDIT]
I have updated tests for `neg_zero` (creal) to be :
```
EXPECT_FP_EQ(func(CFPT(neg_zero - zero * 1.0i)), neg_zero);
EXPECT_FP_EQ(func(CFPT(neg_zero + zero * 1.0i)), zero);
```
because all three [gcc, clang and GNU MPC] also give the same result.
https://godbolt.org/z/hxhcn6aof
and it seems that it is indeed the correct behaviour since Imaginary
types are not supported yet, refer #113671
|
