From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Thu Jan 14 15:37:08 2010 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DmeRsnjUfqZ9dZWEBnkA9dc5eDbK9oN9zfaKbPEcx/A=; b=JsoQjnrkqEZvzo9ErQmdmqZmJglpGEBF+ZGbx/AuV5BdIUrnySpcIXnmcK899YEbAa Ih7XzfXhzW4syk2PzHKQ+OWYf0GGFRKHS++WNXJIX2OrLuxvFPAdkIBGUb3XHmIOnj/D 4wtu9SZKBSLFZ1TOMZ/IreGwi3CGjDRvRwmkA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WHUGxr6kNxYbEgaNbzWOvIBN4cXO0XcTcU/731OqPfTAxeDS+xfogAcwsOMc0Q/233 9pDfBb340s3SRji4kTyG59Wk/0W5Q9EWPiucGfDu7Gf3228G1lFydBx6NjzB+RYnXbWx 64/h6t1aeh6LRBLBuiw1zfw5/oGjS2JSV7pSw= Message-ID: <4B4F7F51.7060403@freesbee.fr> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:32:17 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vincent_Rivi=E8re?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MiNT Mailing List Subject: Re: [MiNT] gmp test fails References: <1263466756.16683.4293.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Miro Kropacek wrote: > fdlibm or pml ? > > default from easymint, i.e. fdlibm I guess. This is what I feared from a long time... the libm issues. Originally I used PML because I was not aware of fdlibm. As it seemed to be quite OK, I never made the effort to switch to fdlibm (yet). When I made the objstack patch, I'm pretty sure all the tests had passed for 68000. I had compiled them with the cross-compiler and PML, then I ran them on ARAnyM through the hostfs. I'm not sure, but I may have tried the 68020-60 version and there was failures... I don't remember well. However, I'm not sure if all the floating-point implementations are strictly equivalent, maybe there are some roundings approximations... However the gmp tests are certainly aware of that. Some time ago I have compiled the latest POV-Ray for MiNT. I used my cross-gcc and PML, as usual. The 68000 and ColdFire version works perfectly (but PML sometimes print warnings on the screen !). The 68020-60 version produces images with very wrong colors. POV-Ray and GMP are good examples because they heavily use the floating point functions. Note there is a particularity on GCC for m68k. On 68000 and ColdFire, the floats are returned in d0 as usual. But on 68020+, they are returned in the FPU register fp0 ! If all the libraries are compiled with the same options and the same compiler, there is no problem. But this certainly a source of problems, and I'm sure it is the case for POV-Ray. However I have not yet investigated this issue. Note that this odd return value behaviour was here in GCC 2.95.3 for MiNT, and I kept it in GCC 4.x. I don't know if all these problems are related. There are not so much functions in the libm, we should make some basic tests manually, then it would be good to find a testsuite. About the math libraries, there is one in Newlib, however I don't know if it is as much optimized as fdlibm. -- Vincent Rivière