From 930cc144a043ff95e56b6888fa51c618b33f89e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kumar Gala Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:19:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] math-emu: Fix signalling of underflow and inexact while packing result. I'm trying to move the powerpc math-emu code to use the include/math-emu bits. In doing so I've been using TestFloat to see how good or bad we are doing. For the most part the current math-emu code that PPC uses has a number of issues that the code in include/math-emu seems to solve (plus bugs we've had for ever that no one every realized). Anyways, I've come across a case that we are flagging underflow and inexact because we think we have a denormalized result from a double precision divide: 000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE soft: 001.0000000000000 ..... syst: 001.0000000000000 ...ux What it looks like is the results out of FP_DIV_D are: D: sign: 0 mantissa: 01000000 00000000 exp: -1023 (0) The problem seems like we aren't normalizing the result and bumping the exp. Now that I'm digging into this a bit I'm thinking my issue has to do with the fix DaveM put in place from back in Aug 2007 (commit 405849610fd96b4f34cd1875c4c033228fea6c0f): [MATH-EMU]: Fix underflow exception reporting. 2) we ended up rounding back up to normal (this is the case where we set the exponent to 1 and set the fraction to zero), this should set inexact too ... Another example, "0x0.0000000000001p-1022 / 16.0", should signal both inexact and underflow. The cpu implementations and ieee1754 literature is very clear about this. This is case #2 above. Here is the distilled glibc test case from Jakub Jelinek which prompted that commit: -------------------- #include #include #include volatile double d = DBL_MIN; volatile double e = 0x0.0000000000001p-1022; volatile double f = 16.0; int main (void) { printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW)); d /= f; printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW)); e /= f; printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW)); return 0; } -------------------- It looks like the case I have we are exact before rounding, but think it looks like the rounding case since it appears as if "overflow is set". 000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE = 001.0000000000000 I think the following adds the check for my case and still works for the issue your commit was trying to resolve. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- include/math-emu/op-common.h | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/math-emu/op-common.h b/include/math-emu/op-common.h index cc1ec396f8d..bc50aa0d6d7 100644 --- a/include/math-emu/op-common.h +++ b/include/math-emu/op-common.h @@ -139,18 +139,27 @@ do { \ if (X##_e <= _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs) \ { \ _FP_FRAC_SRS_##wc(X, X##_e, _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs); \ - _FP_ROUND(wc, X); \ if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \ & (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \ { \ X##_e = 1; \ _FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \ - FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \ } \ else \ { \ - X##_e = 0; \ - _FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \ + _FP_ROUND(wc, X); \ + if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \ + & (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \ + { \ + X##_e = 1; \ + _FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \ + FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \ + } \ + else \ + { \ + X##_e = 0; \ + _FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \ + } \ } \ if ((FP_CUR_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_INEXACT) || \ (FP_TRAPPING_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_UNDERFLOW)) \ -- 2.20.1