Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

The following reply was made to PR lib/46433; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, lib-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost, 
        gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
isaki%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:36:21 -0400

 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 
failure.
 |  > 
 |  > 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.
 
 christos