Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 2614 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 2614.

Report 2614 Actions

    Problem Report Number 2614
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD)
    Problem Resolution ID TSD.X.1359
    Raised 2015-12-21 14:06
    Updated 2015-12-22 11:00
    Published 2015-12-22 11:00
    Product Standard Internationalised System Calls and Libraries Extended V3 (UNIX 03)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSX5 version 5.3.8
    Test Identification C99.os/maths/llrint-tg/T.llrintf 1
    C99.os/maths/lrint-tg/T.lrintf 1
    Specification Base Definitions Issue 6
    Location in Spec none
    Problem Summary Conversion from double to float causes overflow
    Problem Text Take one case (/tset/C99.os/maths/llrint/T.llrint 1)for example.

    In the source code of the this case(C99.os/maths/llrint-tg/llrintf-
    tg.c), I get :
    {
    /*
    * Because of loss of precision, (float)(LLONG_MAX) can
    * be greater than LLONG_MAX. Use nextafter() to
    * ensure we stay within the domain of the function.
    * (A simple (float)(LLONG_MAX - 1) does not work).
    */
    fmlhigh = nextafter(LLONG_MAX, 0.0);
    fmllow = nextafter(LLONG_MIN, 0.0);
    }

    The fmlhigh is a float type variable, and nextafter(LLONG_MAX, 0.0)
    returns a double type number. After the assignment, fmlhigh =
    nextafter(LLONG_MAX, 0.0), fmlhigh becomes
    +9223372036854775808.000000(2^63), beyong the range of the [LLONG_MIN,
    LLONG_MAX].
    Test Output 10|650 /tset/C99.os/maths/llrint-tg/T.llrintf 00:11:23|TC Start,
    scenario ref 651-0
    15|650 3.6-lite 5|TCM Start
    400|650 1 1 00:11:23|IC Start
    200|650 1 00:11:23|TP Start
    520|650 1 00022800 1 1|Random arguments were tested from the interval
    [-9.22337e+18, 9.22337e+18]
    520|650 1 00022800 1 2|The result was too large 20 times
    520|650 1 00022800 1 3| equal 7971 times
    520|650 1 00022800 1 4| too small 9 times
    520|650 1 00022800 1 5|The maximum relative error of 196211 occured for
    value 9.22337e+18
    520|650 1 00022800 1 6|This gave a maximum loss of 42 significant digits
    of base 2
    520|650 1 00022800 1 7|The maximum acceptable loss is 4 significant
    digits
    520|650 1 00022800 1 8|The root-mean-square relative error is 7915.39
    520|650 1 00022800 1 9|This gave an average loss of 37 significant
    digits of base 2
    520|650 1 00022800 1 10|The maximum acceptable loss is 2 significant
    digits
    220|650 1 1 00:11:23|FAIL
    410|650 1 1 00:11:23|IC End

    10|0 /tset/C99.os/maths/lrint-tg/T.lrintf 21:07:16|TC Start, scenario
    ref 1-0, ICs: {1}
    15|0 3.6-lite 1|TCM Start
    400|0 1 1 21:07:16|IC Start
    200|0 1 21:07:16|TP Start
    520|0 1 00009524 1 1|Random arguments were tested from the interval
    [-9.22337e+18, 9.22337e+18]
    520|0 1 00009524 1 2|The result was too large 20 times
    520|0 1 00009524 1 3| equal 7971 times
    520|0 1 00009524 1 4| too small 9 times
    520|0 1 00009524 1 5|The maximum relative error of 194743 occured for
    value 9.22337e+18
    520|0 1 00009524 1 6|This gave a maximum loss of 42 significant digits
    of base 2
    520|0 1 00009524 1 7|The maximum acceptable loss is 4 significant digits
    520|0 1 00009524 1 8|The root-mean-square relative error is 7856.15
    520|0 1 00009524 1 9|This gave an average loss of 37 significant digits
    of base 2
    520|0 1 00009524 1 10|The maximum acceptable loss is 2 significant
    digits
    220|0 1 1 21:07:16|FAIL
    410|0 1 1 21:07:16|IC End
    80|0 0 21:07:17|TC End, scenario ref 1-0
    900|21:07:17|TCC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date 2015-12-21 14:06
    Last Updated 2015-12-21 09:16
    Completed 2015-12-21 09:16
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation Test Suite Deficiency (TSD)
    Review Response This is accepted as a fault in the test suite.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date 2015-12-21 17:16
    Last Updated 2015-12-22 11:00
    Completed 2015-12-22 11:00
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD)
    Review Conclusion A test suite deficiency is granted.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority