Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.config limits_test testcase and qnan checks.
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-13 12:14:52
> First an introduction; my name is Matt Markland and I support the Cray
> Compiling Environment (CCE) C/C++ compiler for Cray, Inc. We (Cray) are
> in the process of improving our Boost support and currently have an intern
> doing some work for us on this path. While working on Boost.config, he
> has run into a testcase failure with the limits_test function
> test_float_limits(). With default options, CCE fails the qnan tests due
> to the fact that we do not conform to the IEEE specification. CCE is a
> little different here in that by default it runs at a higher optimization
> level then other compilers. Gcc will fail this portion of the test if you
> compile with optimization on and -ffast-math.
> My question is whether it is valid to test the qnan behavior when a
> platform does not claim compliance? It seems to me that these checks
> should be wrapped in an is_iec559 check.
I think that's a valid point to make - I've disabled the test for inequality
between NaN's unless is_iec559 is true.
Great to see you're working on compiling Boost too!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk