Bug 6810 - tgamma() does not set errno for underflow error
tgamma() does not set errno for underflow error
Status: NEW
Product: glibc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: math
unspecified
: P2 normal
: ---
Assigned To: Not yet assigned to anyone
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-31 13:52 UTC by Michael Kerrisk
Modified: 2012-03-01 23:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments
test program (11.48 KB, text/plain)
2008-07-31 13:53 UTC, Michael Kerrisk
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Kerrisk 2008-07-31 13:52:25 UTC
tgamma() correctly sets errno and raises an exception for an overflow error. 
However, for an underflow error, it only raises an exception -- errno is not
set; errno should be set to ERANGE for this case.

Background: 
On error, many glibc math functions both set errno and raise an exception
(fetestexcept(3)).  For example, the following  function all do this: acos(),
asin(), cosh(), sinh(), acosh(), asinh(), exp(), exp2(), ldexp(), log(),
log10(), log2().  However, there is much inconsistency.  Some functions raise an
exception, but don't set errno.  Some functions set errno for some errors, but
not others.  A few set errno, but don't raise an exception.  This series of bug
reports documents deviations from what I consider the ideal: all functions
should BOTH set errno AND raise an exception for all errors.

All of these reports relate to tests on glibc 2.8 (as provided by SUSE 11.0).
Comment 1 Michael Kerrisk 2008-07-31 13:53:54 UTC
Created attachment 2882 [details]
test program

Sample runs demonstrating the problem:

$ /tmp/mt_tgamma 1e3
errno == ERANGE
fetestexcept() says:  FE_OVERFLOW FE_INEXACT
tgamma(1.00000000000000000e+03)=inf
ERANGE FE_OVERFLOW +inf

$ /tmp/mt_tgamma -- -100000.5
errno == 0
fetestexcept() says:  FE_UNDERFLOW FE_INEXACT
tgamma(-1.00000500000000000e+05)=-0.00000000000000000e+00
0 FE_UNDERFLOW -0
Comment 2 Joseph Myers 2012-03-01 23:29:18 UTC
Confirmed for current sources on both x86 and x86_64 - with the addition that on x86_64, the underflow exception for -100000.5 is also missing (it's present on x86).