(assert (= 0.0d0 (scale-float 1.0d0 (1- most-negative-fixnum))))
(with-test (:name (:scale-float-overflow :bug-372)
- :fails-on :darwin) ;; bug 372
+ :fails-on '(and :darwin (or :ppc :x86))) ;; bug 372
(progn
(assert (raises-error? (scale-float 1.0 most-positive-fixnum)
floating-point-overflow))
(funcall (compile nil '(lambda () (tan (tan (round 0))))))
(with-test (:name (:addition-overflow :bug-372)
- :fails-on '(or (and :ppc :openbsd) :darwin (and :x86 :netbsd)))
+ :fails-on '(or (and :ppc :openbsd)
+ (and (or :ppc :x86) :darwin)
+ (and :x86 :netbsd)))
+ (assert (typep (nth-value
+ 1
+ (ignore-errors
+ (sb-sys:without-interrupts
+ (sb-int:set-floating-point-modes :current-exceptions nil
+ :accrued-exceptions nil)
+ (loop repeat 2 summing most-positive-double-float)
+ (sleep 2))))
+ 'floating-point-overflow)))
+
+;; This is the same test as above. Even if the above copy passes,
+;; this copy will fail if SIGFPE handling ends up clearing the FPU
+;; control word, which can happen if the kernel clears the FPU control
+;; (a reasonable thing for it to do) and the runtime fails to
+;; compensate for this (see RESTORE_FP_CONTROL_WORD in interrupt.c).
+(with-test (:name (:addition-overflow :bug-372 :take-2)
+ :fails-on '(or (and :ppc :openbsd)
+ (and (or :ppc :x86) :darwin)
+ (and :x86 :netbsd)))
(assert (typep (nth-value
1
(ignore-errors
(assert (= (round 1073741823.3d0) 1073741823))
(assert (= (round 1073741823.5d0) 1073741824))
(assert (= (round 1073741823.7d0) 1073741824)))
+
+(with-test (:name :round-single-to-bignum)
+ (assert (= (round 1e14) 100000000376832))
+ (assert (= (round 1e19) 9999999980506447872)))