Re: [avr-libc-dev] Test results

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Dmitry K. wrote:

Thanks a lot for your timely analysis, it is much appreciated, Dmitry!

> 2. isinf()
> See the GCC bug #35509.  Avr-libc's isinf() work fine.
> Hovever, since 4.3 branch the GCC replaces it with
> themselves inline code, which return the +1 value for
> negative infinity.  This is mismatch to traditionaly
> isinf() behavior.

OTOH, isinf() is well defined by the C99 standard, and is only
required to return a nonzero result for an infinite argument,
regardless of the sign.  So IMHO this is not really a bug.

>    I think, it is needed to add note about this bug.

Documenting the change would be good, anyway.

> 3. modf()
> The modern GCC replaces it with inline code, which
> does not permit to use NULL address for the avoiding an
> integral part storing.
>    I think, it is needed to add note about this.

Yes, OK.

> Other is not needed a quick corrections:
> 
> 4. bug-22828 and other EEPROM tests:  seems, this is a
> Simulavr problem.  The 0.1.2.1 version is correct.  I will
> look this in details.

As time permits, I'll also look into that.

> In future, it is desirable to exclude inline replacing
> of math functions for AVR back-end.  This will reduce the
> code size (and, probably, enlarge the speed).  I remember
> that it is not difficult.

To me, that sounds like the ultimate way would be to integrate your
implementations into GCC itself.  What do you think?

This raises the question whether you ever filed a copyright assignment
with the Free Software Foundation (because they require that for any
changes that go into GCC or binutils).

> I plan to correct docs today, 5 Mar, at the nearest 6 hours.

This is great!
-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)