[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
On May 30, 4:00pm, jruohonen%iki.fi@localhost (Jukka Ruohonen) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
| The following reply was made to PR lib/46433; it has been noted by GNATS.
| From: Jukka Ruohonen <jruohonen%iki.fi@localhost>
| To: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
| Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
| Subject: Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
| Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:57:08 +0300
| On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:47:10AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
| > > And once again, the idea has never been to skip tests but to report these
| > > as expected failures. As a developer, you should benefit from this as you
| > > see directly whether and when a bug is fixed. Thus, this particular case
| > > still requires the MD-specific check, which points to this PR upon
| > Only if the test correctly fails on bogus implementation?
| > Tests which could return false positive won't show if a bug is fixed
| > and just hide bugs.
| Obviously. No one has claimed that there wouldn't be bugs in the tests. For
| this case, there is still the twin PR lib/46434.
| But when trying to see the forest from the trees: the decision is not always
| clear particularly when emulators come to the picture. For instance, we've
| captured a fair amount of Qemu-related FP bugs. But now that these are
| counted as expected failures, we've noticed that new Qemu releases have
| fixed some of these issues; see PR misc/44767.
| And I don't particularly like the current #ifdef __vax__ madness either...
That should be changed to HAVE_IEEE_MATH or something. I think I started
doing that a while ago.
Main Index |
Thread Index |