[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#137020: acknowledged by developer (Bug#137020: fixed in glibc 2.3.1-15)

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 22:04:26 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> I tested as:
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <fpu_control.h>
> main()
> {
>         unsigned int a;
>         _FPU_GETCW(a);
>         _FPU_SETCW(a);
>         printf("%x\n",a);
> }
> Original bug does not say "_FPU_RC_ZERO".  You _have to_ send a
> test program to report BTS in the next time.

OK. But note that I did (very shortly) explain the problem in my
original bug report.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 22:19:23 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> ... and this bug is really fixed in glibc 2.3.2-1.

I haven't seen glibc 2.3.2-1. When you say "fixed", did you test
with _FPU_RC_ZERO only or did you check the code?

In particular, the following test program would have failed too
with glibc 2.3.1:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <fpu_control.h>

  unsigned int d;


(This is your test program where 'a' has been replaced by 'd'.)


Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International
des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Reply to: