[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
At Wed, 9 May 2012 05:55:02 +0000 (UTC),
Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR lib/46433; it has been noted by GNATS.
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 03:05:00AM +0000, isaki%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
> > for exp(). For example, this test will pass if a broken exp()
> > that always return zero.
> Do you have an opinion on how to fix this (and the related issues)?
> In my opinion: if a precondition for a test is not satisfied, the test
> should be skipped. Alternatively, we could append a "broken exp(3) check"
> to these tests and record expected failures on exotic things like VAX or
> m68k without FPU. For the first option, it would be desirable to have
> machine-dependent preprocessor conditionals (cf. "_HAVE_EXP_") for each and
> every math(3) function.
How about the method to compare with the pre-calculated
constants (like cos_angles test in t_cos.c)?
Tetsuya Isaki <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost / isaki%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Main Index |
Thread Index |