- 15 4月, 2012 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
the "< 0" test was always false due to use of an unsigned type. this resulted in infinite loops on 32-bit machines (adding -1U to a pointer is the same as adding -1) and crashes on 64-bit machines (offsetting the string pointer by 4gb-1b when an illegal sequence was hit).
-
- 14 4月, 2012 3 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
this is legal since sa_* is in the reserved namespace for signal.h, per posix. note that the sa_restorer field is not used anywhere, so programs that are trying to use it may still break, but at least they'll compile. if it turns out such programs actually need to be able to set their own sa_restorer to function properly, i'll add the necessary code to sigaction.c later.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
TRE wants to treat + and ? after a +, ?, or * as special; ? means ungreedy and + is reserved for future use. however, this is non-conformant. although redundant, these redundant characters have well-defined (no-op) meaning for POSIX ERE, and are actually _literal_ characters (which TRE is wrongly ignoring) in POSIX BRE mode. the simplest fix is to simply remove the unneeded nonstandard functionality. as a plus, this shaves off a small amount of bloat.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
- 13 4月, 2012 3 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
this increases code size slightly, but it's considerably faster, especially for power-of-2 bases.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
at -Os optimization level, gcc refuses to inline these functions even though the inlined code would roughly the same size as the function call, and much faster. the easy solution is to make them into macros.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
whenever the base was small enough that more than one digit could still fit after UINTMAX_MAX/36-1 was reached, only the first would be allowed; subsequent digits would trigger spurious overflow, making it impossible to read the largest values in low bases.
-
- 12 4月, 2012 9 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
when upscaling, even the very last digit is needed in cases where the input is exact; no digits can be discarded. but when downscaling, any digits less significant than the mantissa bits are destined for the great bitbucket; the only influence they can have is their presence (being nonzero). thus, we simply throw them away early. the result is nearly a 4x performance improvement for processing huge values. the particular threshold LD_B1B_DIG+3 is not chosen sharply; it's simply a "safe" distance past the significant bits. it would be nice to replace it with a sharp bound, but i suspect performance will be comparable (within a few percent) anyway.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
now that this is the first operation, it can rely on the circular buffer contents not being wrapped when it begins. we limit the number of digits read slightly in the initial parsing loops too so that this code does not have to consider the case where it might cause the circular buffer to wrap; this is perfectly fine because KMAX is chosen as a power of two for circular-buffer purposes and is much larger than it otherwise needs to be, anyway. these changes should not affect performance at all.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
upscaling by even one step too much creates 3-29 extra iterations for the next loop. this is still suboptimal since it always goes by 2^29 rather than using a smaller upscale factor when nearing the target, but performance on common, small-magnitude, few-digit values has already more than doubled with this change. more optimizations on the way...
-
- 11 4月, 2012 7 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
for example, "1000000000" was being read as "1" due to this loop exiting early. it's necessary to actually update z and zero the entries so that the subsequent rounding code does not get confused; before i did that, spurious inexact exceptions were being raised.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
note that there's no need for a precise cutoff, because exponents this large will always result in overflow or underflow (it's impossible to read enough digits to compensate for the exponent magnitude; even at a few nanoseconds per digit it would take hundreds of years).
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
the immediate benefit is a significant debloating of the float parsing code by moving the responsibility for keeping track of the number of characters read to a different module. by linking shgetc with the stdio buffer logic, counting logic is defered to buffer refill time, keeping the calls to shgetc fast and light. in the future, shgetc will also be useful for integrating the new float code with scanf, which needs to not only count the characters consumed, but also limit the number of characters read based on field width specifiers. shgetc may also become a useful tool for simplifying the integer parsing code.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
- 10 4月, 2012 3 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
this version is intended to be fully conformant to the ISO C, POSIX, and IEEE standards for conversion of decimal/hex floating point strings to float, double, and long double (ld64 or ld80 only at present) values. in particular, all results are intended to be rounded correctly according to the current rounding mode. further, this implementation aims to set the floating point underflow, overflow, and inexact flags to reflect the conversion performed. a moderate amount of testing has been performed (by nsz and myself) prior to integration of the code in musl, but it still may have bugs. so far, only strto(d|ld|f) use the new code. scanf integration will be done as a separate commit, and i will add implementations of the wide character functions later.
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
I forgot _GNU_SOURCE also has it declared here...
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
gcc makes this mapping by default anyway, but it will be disabled by -fno-builtin (and presumably by -std=c99 or similar). for the main program the error will be reported by the linker, and the issue can easily be fixed, but for dynamic-loaded so files, the error cannot be detected until dlopen time, at which point it has become very obscure.
-
- 04 4月, 2012 3 次提交
-
-
由 nsz 提交于
use (1-x)*(1+x) instead of (1-x*x) in asin.s the later can be inaccurate with upward rounding when x is close to 1
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
when the "r" (register) constraint is used to let gcc choose a register, gcc will sometimes assign the same register that was used for one of the other fixed-register operands, if it knows the values are the same. one common case is multiple zero arguments to a syscall. this horribly breaks the intended usage, which is swapping the GOT pointer from ebx into the temp register and back to perform the syscall. presumably there is a way to fix this with advanced usage of register constaints on the inline asm, but having bad memories about hellish compatibility issues with different gcc versions, for the time being i'm just going to hard-code specific registers to be used. this may hurt the compiler's ability to optimize, but it will fix serious miscompilation issues. so far the only function i know what compiled incorrectly is getrlimit.c, and naturally the bug only applies to shared (PIC) builds, but it may be more extensive and may have gone undetected..
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
- 02 4月, 2012 1 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
the buffer in getaddrinfo really only matters when /etc/hosts is huge, but in that case, the huge number of syscalls resulting from a tiny buffer would seriously impact the performance of every name lookup. the buffer in __dns.c has also been enlarged a bit so that typical resolv.conf files will fit fully in the buffer. there's no need to make it so large as to dominate the syscall overhead for large files, because resolv.conf should never be large.
-
- 31 3月, 2012 2 次提交
-
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
由 Rich Felker 提交于
-
- 29 3月, 2012 4 次提交
-
-
由 nsz 提交于
-
由 nsz 提交于
the int part was wrong when -1 < x <= -0 (+0.0 instead of -0.0) and the size and performace gain of the asm version was negligible
-
由 nsz 提交于
cleaner implementation with unions and unsigned arithmetic
-
由 nsz 提交于
modfl(+-inf) was wrong on ld80 because the explicit msb was not taken into account during inf vs nan check
-
- 28 3月, 2012 4 次提交