From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11004 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2006 02:38:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10996 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2006 02:38:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:38:10 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FtbYe-0000TB-BV; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:38:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Wu Zhou Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] decimal float point patch based on libdecnumber: testcase Message-ID: <20060623023808.GA1781@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Wu Zhou , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060622202457.GA22230@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 07:27:29AM +0800, Wu Zhou wrote: > That is because they have different precision/exponent. Number > 1234567890123456.dd have 16 digits, its coefficient is 1234567890123456, > and exponent is 0, so it won't print back with an exponent. While in the > case of "1.2E10dd", the coefficient is 12, exponent is 9, so it will print > back with an exponent. And in exponent display mode, the coefficient will > be normalized, in this case, to 1.2; and exponent get to 10 respectively. > > For "p 1200000000000000.dd", it will return 1200000000000000. It is > equal to but different than 1.2E+15. Their precison is not the same. So they map down to different bit patterns. How bizarre. > Do you mean that we need to output something more close to the fact. to > say, "Addition/Multiple of decimal floating point is not supported right > now". or something other like this. If you want, I can do that. No, I think what's there is fine - but add a test or two for that error message. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery