Re: ilmbase

[Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > > ilmbase failed to build properly; the test suite failed.
> >
> > ilmbase seems to be fairly new, so the question of whether the test suite
> > ever worked on m68k is a bit moot.
> >
> > If I parse the testsuite output right, it tries to do some rounding tests
> > based on pathological bit patterns for floats? Maybe we should try to run
> > that test suite on a 030 or 040 machine? I'm wondering whetther what we see
> > here is a corner case in the 040 or 060 FPSP routines rather than a
> > toolchain bug.
> 
> Just saw it's giving two different testsuite fails for t2 and vault13. This
> definitely smells like something specific to the particular sort of CPU being
> used. Can we please have that bit pattern section of the testsuite disabled on
> m68k (you already disabled the whole testsuite on arm)?

Maybe the aranym devs would be interested in a little Test Driven 
Development? Nothing major, just enough to get these floating point tests 
to pass. It seems a bit dangerous to disable the testsuite...

-f

> I'm looking at the testsuite code and it does seem to even get the value of
> the second NaN bit pattern wrong when calling the test:
> 
> floatPosQNan2 ()
> {
>     half::uif x;
>     x.i = 0x7fd55555;
>     return x.f;
> }
> 
> gives (inside testBits()) a string of 0 11111111 11111111111111111111111
> (for printBits (cout, f)) which is the value for floatPosQNan1(), where it
> should instead have been 0 11111111 10101010101010101010101 as set above. So
> that's quite odd.
>...