On Jan 15, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Heinz Junkes via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:
I now have epics on RTEMS5 running quite reasonably on the qoriq system (MVME2500).
I see problems with the arithmetic (even without optimization):
At least some of these failures look more like problems in the compiler than on the device itself:
not ok 18 - Inf
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Double inf
not ok 19 - Infinity
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Double inf
not ok 20 - NaN
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
The above expected results were calculated by the compiler and are wrong, whereas the calc _expression_ is actually returning the right result.
not ok 38 - -Inf
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
As above.
not ok 57 - finite(Inf)
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double inf
FINITE, 1 arg(s)
Hmm, no the compiler is wrong again, and for the next 2:
not ok 58 - finite(-Inf)
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
FINITE, 1 arg(s)
not ok 59 - finite(NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double nan
FINITE, 1 arg(s)
For these finite() tests we provide the expected result, which is why they pass:
...
These are all compiler errors:
not ok 93 - MAX( 1., Inf)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
MAX, 2 arg(s)
not ok 95 - MAX( 1., NaN)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
MAX, 2 arg(s)
not ok 96 - MAX( Inf, 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Double inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 2 arg(s)
not ok 98 - MAX( NaN, 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 2 arg(s)
not ok 105 - MAX( 1., 2., Inf)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double inf
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 107 - MAX( 1., 2., NaN)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double nan
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 108 - MAX( 1., Inf,2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 110 - MAX( 1., NaN,2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 111 - MAX( Inf, 1.,2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Double inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 113 - MAX( NaN, 1.,2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 3 arg(s)
not ok 118 - MAX( 1., 2., 3.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double nan
MAX, 4 arg(s)
not ok 119 - MAX( 1., 2.,NaN, 3.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double nan
Integer 3 (0x3)
MAX, 4 arg(s)
not ok 120 - MAX( 1.,NaN, 3., 2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 4 arg(s)
not ok 121 - MAX(NaN, 2., 3., 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 4 arg(s)
not ok 127 - MAX( 1., 2., 3., 4.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Double nan
MAX, 5 arg(s)
not ok 128 - MAX( 1., 2., 3.,NaN, 4.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double nan
Integer 4 (0x4)
MAX, 5 arg(s)
not ok 129 - MAX( 1., 2.,NaN, 4., 3.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double nan
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 3 (0x3)
MAX, 5 arg(s)
not ok 130 - MAX( 1.,NaN, 3., 4., 2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 5 arg(s)
not ok 131 - MAX(NaN, 2., 3., 4., 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 5 arg(s)
not ok 138 - MAX( 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Double nan
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 139 - MAX( 1., 2., 3., 4.,NaN, 5.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Double nan
Integer 5 (0x5)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 140 - MAX( 1., 2., 3.,NaN, 5., 4.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double nan
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 4 (0x4)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 141 - MAX( 1., 2.,NaN, 4., 5., 3.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double nan
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 3 (0x3)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 142 - MAX( 1.,NaN, 3., 4., 5., 2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 143 - MAX(NaN, 2., 3., 4., 5., 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got nan
Double nan
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 144 - MAX( 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.,Inf)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Double inf
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 145 - MAX( 1., 2., 3., 4.,Inf, 5.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Double inf
Integer 5 (0x5)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 146 - MAX( 1., 2., 3.,Inf, 5., 4.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double inf
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 4 (0x4)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 147 - MAX( 1., 2.,Inf, 4., 5., 3.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double inf
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 3 (0x3)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 148 - MAX( 1.,Inf, 3., 4., 5., 2.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 149 - MAX(Inf, 2., 3., 4., 5., 1.)
# Expected result is 1.79769e+308, actually got inf
Double inf
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 1 (0x1)
MAX, 6 arg(s)
not ok 156 - MIN(1.,-Inf)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MIN, 2 arg(s)
This and some of the tests below imply that when the compiler does the math it's handling NaN as though it’s the value 1.79769e+308.
not ok 157 - MIN(1.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double nan
MIN, 2 arg(s)
The expected result there ought to be NaN, not 1.
Given the previous result though this test pass surprises me:
The result of the above should have been NaN, but the compiler’s expected result would have been 1.0. Can you try adding this line to the epicsCalcTest.cpp file and see what it gives?
testCalc("MIN(NaN,1.)", NaN);
Compiler errors in the expected result:
not ok 166 - MIN( 1., 2.,-Inf)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MIN, 3 arg(s)
not ok 167 - MIN( 1., 2., NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double nan
MIN, 3 arg(s)
not ok 169 - MIN( 1.,-Inf,2.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 2 (0x2)
MIN, 3 arg(s)
not ok 172 - MIN(-Inf, 1.,2.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MIN, 3 arg(s)
not ok 178 - MIN( 1., 2., 3.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double nan
MIN, 4 arg(s)
not ok 187 - MIN( 1., 2., 3., 4.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Double nan
MIN, 5 arg(s)
not ok 198 - MIN( 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.,NaN)
# Expected result is 1, actually got nan
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Double nan
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 204 - MIN( 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.,-Inf)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 205 - MIN( 1., 2., 3., 4.,-Inf, 5.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 5 (0x5)
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 206 - MIN( 1., 2., 3.,-Inf, 5., 4.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 4 (0x4)
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 207 - MIN( 1., 2.,-Inf, 4., 5., 3.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Integer 2 (0x2)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 3 (0x3)
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 208 - MIN( 1.,-Inf, 3., 4., 5., 2.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Integer 1 (0x1)
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 2 (0x2)
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 209 - MIN(-Inf, 2., 3., 4., 5., 1.)
# Expected result is -1.79769e+308, actually got -inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Integer 2 (0x2)
Integer 3 (0x3)
Integer 4 (0x4)
Integer 5 (0x5)
Integer 1 (0x1)
MIN, 6 arg(s)
not ok 236 - Inf != NaN
# Expected result is 0, actually got 1
Double inf
Double nan
NOT_EQ
So the compiler thinks Inf == NaN?
not ok 242 - NaN != Inf
# Expected result is 0, actually got 1
Double nan
Double inf
NOT_EQ
At least it’s consistent.
These expected results are fun:
not ok 263 - Inf * Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
MULT
not ok 264 - Inf * -Inf
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MULT
not ok 265 - Inf * NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double nan
MULT
not ok 267 - -Inf * Inf
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
MULT
not ok 268 - -Inf * -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MULT
not ok 269 - -Inf * NaN
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double nan
MULT
not ok 271 - NaN * Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
MULT
not ok 272 - NaN * -Inf
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
MULT
not ok 273 - NaN * NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double nan
MULT
not ok 284 - Inf + Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
ADD
not ok 285 - Inf + -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
ADD
not ok 286 - Inf + NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double nan
ADD
not ok 288 - -Inf + Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
ADD
not ok 289 - -Inf + -Inf
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
ADD
not ok 290 - -Inf + NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double nan
ADD
not ok 292 - NaN + Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
ADD
not ok 293 - NaN + -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
ADD
not ok 294 - NaN + NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double nan
ADD
not ok 301 - Inf - Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
SUB
not ok 302 - Inf - -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
SUB
not ok 303 - Inf - NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double inf
Double nan
SUB
not ok 305 - -Inf - Inf
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
SUB
not ok 306 - -Inf - -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
SUB
not ok 307 - -Inf - NaN
# Expected result is -3.40282e+38, actually got -1.79769e+308
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
Double nan
SUB
not ok 309 - NaN - Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
SUB
not ok 310 - NaN - -Inf
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double inf
UNARY_NEG
SUB
not ok 311 - NaN - NaN
# Expected result is 3.40282e+38, actually got 1.79769e+308
Double nan
Double nan
SUB
not ok 339 - Inf < NaN
# Expected result is 0, actually got 1
Double inf
Double nan
LESS_THAN
Here the compiler’s expected result was actually right (confirmed on Darwin) and the actual result is wrong. Try adding this line to epicsCalcTest.cpp to confirm:
testCalc("Inf < NaN", 0);
not ok 366 - NaN <= Inf
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double nan
Double inf
LESS_OR_EQ
Another surprise there, please try adding this:
testCalc("NaN <= Inf", 0);
not ok 383 - Inf == NaN
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double inf
Double nan
EQUAL
Yes, the compiler does think Inf == NaN!
not ok 389 - NaN == Inf
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double nan
Double inf
EQUAL
Both ways round too!
not ok 408 - NaN > Inf
# Expected result is 0, actually got 1
Double nan
Double inf
GR_THAN
The compiler is being consistent, but any _expression_ involving a NaN should return 0. Try this to confirm:
testCalc("NaN > Inf", 0);
not ok 421 - Inf >= NaN
# Expected result is 1, actually got 0
Double inf
Double nan
GR_OR_EQ
And this:
testCalc("Inf >= NaN", 0);
So there are problems in the compiler, but the run-time doesn’t seem to be 100% right either. The compiler issues should be easily extracted into simple C/C++ code and reported (to the RTEMS guys first?) if someone wants to work on that...
- Andrew
--
Complexity comes for free, simplicity you have to work for.
|
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·