math-emu: Fix signalling of underflow and inexact while packing result.

I'm trying to move the powerpc math-emu code to use the include/math-emu bits.

In doing so I've been using TestFloat to see how good or bad we are
doing. For the most part the current math-emu code that PPC uses has
a number of issues that the code in include/math-emu seems to solve
(plus bugs we've had for ever that no one every realized).

Anyways, I've come across a case that we are flagging underflow and
inexact because we think we have a denormalized result from a double
precision divide:

000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE
soft: 001.0000000000000 ..... syst: 001.0000000000000 ...ux

What it looks like is the results out of FP_DIV_D are:

D:
sign: 0
mantissa: 01000000 00000000
exp: -1023 (0)

The problem seems like we aren't normalizing the result and bumping the exp.

Now that I'm digging into this a bit I'm thinking my issue has to do with
the fix DaveM put in place from back in Aug 2007 (commit
405849610fd96b4f34cd1875c4c033228fea6c0f):

[MATH-EMU]: Fix underflow exception reporting.

2) we ended up rounding back up to normal (this is the case where
we set the exponent to 1 and set the fraction to zero), this
should set inexact too
...

Another example, "0x0.0000000000001p-1022 / 16.0", should signal both
inexact and underflow. The cpu implementations and ieee1754
literature is very clear about this. This is case #2 above.

Here is the distilled glibc test case from Jakub Jelinek which prompted that
commit:

--------------------
#include <float.h>
#include <fenv.h>
#include <stdio.h>

volatile double d = DBL_MIN;
volatile double e = 0x0.0000000000001p-1022;
volatile double f = 16.0;
int
main (void)
{
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
d /= f;
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
e /= f;
printf ("%x\n", fetestexcept (FE_UNDERFLOW));
return 0;
}
--------------------

It looks like the case I have we are exact before rounding, but think it
looks like the rounding case since it appears as if "overflow is set".

000.FFFFFFFFFFFFF / 3FE.FFFFFFFFFFFFE = 001.0000000000000

I think the following adds the check for my case and still works for the
issue your commit was trying to resolve.

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

authored by Kumar Gala and committed by David S. Miller 930cc144 d41e2d73

+13 -4
+13 -4
include/math-emu/op-common.h
··· 139 139 if (X##_e <= _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs) \ 140 140 { \ 141 141 _FP_FRAC_SRS_##wc(X, X##_e, _FP_WFRACBITS_##fs); \ 142 - _FP_ROUND(wc, X); \ 143 142 if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \ 144 143 & (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \ 145 144 { \ 146 145 X##_e = 1; \ 147 146 _FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \ 148 - FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \ 149 147 } \ 150 148 else \ 151 149 { \ 152 - X##_e = 0; \ 153 - _FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \ 150 + _FP_ROUND(wc, X); \ 151 + if (_FP_FRAC_HIGH_##fs(X) \ 152 + & (_FP_OVERFLOW_##fs >> 1)) \ 153 + { \ 154 + X##_e = 1; \ 155 + _FP_FRAC_SET_##wc(X, _FP_ZEROFRAC_##wc); \ 156 + FP_SET_EXCEPTION(FP_EX_INEXACT); \ 157 + } \ 158 + else \ 159 + { \ 160 + X##_e = 0; \ 161 + _FP_FRAC_SRL_##wc(X, _FP_WORKBITS); \ 162 + } \ 154 163 } \ 155 164 if ((FP_CUR_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_INEXACT) || \ 156 165 (FP_TRAPPING_EXCEPTIONS & FP_EX_UNDERFLOW)) \