1 files changed, 178 insertions, 178 deletions
diff --git a/lcc/sparc/solaris/tst/paranoia.1bk b/lcc/sparc/solaris/tst/paranoia.1bk
index 30c3470..09e21fa 100755
--- a/lcc/sparc/solaris/tst/paranoia.1bk
+++ b/lcc/sparc/solaris/tst/paranoia.1bk
@@ -1,178 +1,178 @@
-Lest this program stop prematurely, i.e. before displaying
-
-    `END OF TEST',
-
-try to persuade the computer NOT to terminate execution when an
-error like Over/Underflow or Division by Zero occurs, but rather
-to persevere with a surrogate value after, perhaps, displaying some
-warning.  If persuasion avails naught, don't despair but run this
-program anyway to see how many milestones it passes, and then
-amend it to make further progress.
-
-Answer questions with Y, y, N or n (unless otherwise indicated).
-
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 0          Page: 1
-
-Users are invited to help debug and augment this program so it will
-cope with unanticipated and newly uncovered arithmetic pathologies.
-
-Please send suggestions and interesting results to
-	Richard Karpinski
-	Computer Center U-76
-	University of California
-	San Francisco, CA 94143-0704, USA
-
-In doing so, please include the following information:
-	Precision:	double;
-	Version:	10 February 1989;
-	Computer:
-
-	Compiler:
-
-	Optimization level:
-
-	Other relevant compiler options:
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 1          Page: 2
-
-Running this program should reveal these characteristics:
-     Radix = 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 100, 256 ...
-     Precision = number of significant digits carried.
-     U2 = Radix/Radix^Precision = One Ulp
-	(OneUlpnit in the Last Place) of 1.000xxx .
-     U1 = 1/Radix^Precision = One Ulp of numbers a little less than 1.0 .
-     Adequacy of guard digits for Mult., Div. and Subt.
-     Whether arithmetic is chopped, correctly rounded, or something else
-	for Mult., Div., Add/Subt. and Sqrt.
-     Whether a Sticky Bit used correctly for rounding.
-     UnderflowThreshold = an underflow threshold.
-     E0 and PseudoZero tell whether underflow is abrupt, gradual, or fuzzy.
-     V = an overflow threshold, roughly.
-     V0  tells, roughly, whether  Infinity  is represented.
-     Comparisions are checked for consistency with subtraction
-	and for contamination with pseudo-zeros.
-     Sqrt is tested.  Y^X is not tested.
-     Extra-precise subexpressions are revealed but NOT YET tested.
-     Decimal-Binary conversion is NOT YET tested for accuracy.
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 2          Page: 3
-
-The program attempts to discriminate among
-   FLAWs, like lack of a sticky bit,
-   Serious DEFECTs, like lack of a guard digit, and
-   FAILUREs, like 2+2 == 5 .
-Failures may confound subsequent diagnoses.
-
-The diagnostic capabilities of this program go beyond an earlier
-program called `MACHAR', which can be found at the end of the
-book  `Software Manual for the Elementary Functions' (1980) by
-W. J. Cody and W. Waite. Although both programs try to discover
-the Radix, Precision and range (over/underflow thresholds)
-of the arithmetic, this program tries to cope with a wider variety
-of pathologies, and to say how well the arithmetic is implemented.
-
-The program is based upon a conventional radix representation for
-floating-point numbers, but also allows logarithmic encoding
-as used by certain early WANG machines.
-
-BASIC version of this program (C) 1983 by Prof. W. M. Kahan;
-see source comments for more history.
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 3          Page: 4
-
-Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:
--1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.
-
-Searching for Radix and Precision.
-Radix = 2.000000 .
-Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .
-
-Recalculating radix and precision
- confirms closest relative separation U1 .
-Radix confirmed.
-The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 30          Page: 5
-
-Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.
-Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.
-     *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 40          Page: 6
-
-Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.
-Multiplication appears to round correctly.
-Division appears to round correctly.
-Addition/Subtraction appears to round correctly.
-Checking for sticky bit.
-Sticky bit apparently used correctly.
-
-Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.
-     No failures found in 20 integer pairs.
-
-Running test of square root(x).
-Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.
-Test for sqrt monotonicity.
-sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.
-Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.
-Square root appears to be correctly rounded.
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 90          Page: 7
-
-Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.
-... no discrepancis found.
-
-Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.
-Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 4.94066e-324 .
-Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.
-What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .
-This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.
-Underflow is gradual; it incurs Absolute Error =
-(roundoff in UfThold) < E0.
-The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720188e-308,  below which
-calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.
-Since underflow occurs below the threshold
-UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)
-only underflow should afflict the expression
-	(2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03);
-actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
-This computed value is O.K.
-
-Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065218e+00 as X -> 1.
-Accuracy seems adequate.
-Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.
- ... no discrepancies found.
-
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 160          Page: 8
-
-Searching for Overflow threshold:
-This may generate an error.
-Can `Z = -Y' overflow?
-Trying it on Y = -Infinity .
-Seems O.K.
-Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
-Overflow saturates at V0 = Infinity .
-No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308
-                           nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
-Any overflow signal separating this * from the one
-above is a DEFECT.
-
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 190          Page: 9
-
-
-What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?
-    Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...  Infinity .
-
-    Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...  NaN .
-
-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 220          Page: 10
-
-
-
-No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered.
-Rounding appears to conform to the proposed IEEE standard P754.
-The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!
-END OF TEST.
+Lest this program stop prematurely, i.e. before displaying
+
+    `END OF TEST',
+
+try to persuade the computer NOT to terminate execution when an
+error like Over/Underflow or Division by Zero occurs, but rather
+to persevere with a surrogate value after, perhaps, displaying some
+warning.  If persuasion avails naught, don't despair but run this
+program anyway to see how many milestones it passes, and then
+amend it to make further progress.
+
+Answer questions with Y, y, N or n (unless otherwise indicated).
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 0          Page: 1
+
+Users are invited to help debug and augment this program so it will
+cope with unanticipated and newly uncovered arithmetic pathologies.
+
+Please send suggestions and interesting results to
+	Richard Karpinski
+	Computer Center U-76
+	University of California
+	San Francisco, CA 94143-0704, USA
+
+In doing so, please include the following information:
+	Precision:	double;
+	Version:	10 February 1989;
+	Computer:
+
+	Compiler:
+
+	Optimization level:
+
+	Other relevant compiler options:
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 1          Page: 2
+
+Running this program should reveal these characteristics:
+     Radix = 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 100, 256 ...
+     Precision = number of significant digits carried.
+     U2 = Radix/Radix^Precision = One Ulp
+	(OneUlpnit in the Last Place) of 1.000xxx .
+     U1 = 1/Radix^Precision = One Ulp of numbers a little less than 1.0 .
+     Adequacy of guard digits for Mult., Div. and Subt.
+     Whether arithmetic is chopped, correctly rounded, or something else
+	for Mult., Div., Add/Subt. and Sqrt.
+     Whether a Sticky Bit used correctly for rounding.
+     UnderflowThreshold = an underflow threshold.
+     E0 and PseudoZero tell whether underflow is abrupt, gradual, or fuzzy.
+     V = an overflow threshold, roughly.
+     V0  tells, roughly, whether  Infinity  is represented.
+     Comparisions are checked for consistency with subtraction
+	and for contamination with pseudo-zeros.
+     Sqrt is tested.  Y^X is not tested.
+     Extra-precise subexpressions are revealed but NOT YET tested.
+     Decimal-Binary conversion is NOT YET tested for accuracy.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 2          Page: 3
+
+The program attempts to discriminate among
+   FLAWs, like lack of a sticky bit,
+   Serious DEFECTs, like lack of a guard digit, and
+   FAILUREs, like 2+2 == 5 .
+Failures may confound subsequent diagnoses.
+
+The diagnostic capabilities of this program go beyond an earlier
+program called `MACHAR', which can be found at the end of the
+book  `Software Manual for the Elementary Functions' (1980) by
+W. J. Cody and W. Waite. Although both programs try to discover
+the Radix, Precision and range (over/underflow thresholds)
+of the arithmetic, this program tries to cope with a wider variety
+of pathologies, and to say how well the arithmetic is implemented.
+
+The program is based upon a conventional radix representation for
+floating-point numbers, but also allows logarithmic encoding
+as used by certain early WANG machines.
+
+BASIC version of this program (C) 1983 by Prof. W. M. Kahan;
+see source comments for more history.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 3          Page: 4
+
+Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:
+-1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.
+
+Searching for Radix and Precision.
+Radix = 2.000000 .
+Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .
+
+Recalculating radix and precision
+ confirms closest relative separation U1 .
+Radix confirmed.
+The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 30          Page: 5
+
+Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.
+Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.
+     *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 40          Page: 6
+
+Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.
+Multiplication appears to round correctly.
+Division appears to round correctly.
+Addition/Subtraction appears to round correctly.
+Checking for sticky bit.
+Sticky bit apparently used correctly.
+
+Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.
+     No failures found in 20 integer pairs.
+
+Running test of square root(x).
+Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.
+Test for sqrt monotonicity.
+sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.
+Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.
+Square root appears to be correctly rounded.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 90          Page: 7
+
+Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.
+... no discrepancis found.
+
+Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.
+Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 4.94066e-324 .
+Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.
+What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .
+This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.
+Underflow is gradual; it incurs Absolute Error =
+(roundoff in UfThold) < E0.
+The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720188e-308,  below which
+calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.
+Since underflow occurs below the threshold
+UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)
+only underflow should afflict the expression
+	(2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03);
+actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
+This computed value is O.K.
+
+Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065218e+00 as X -> 1.
+Accuracy seems adequate.
+Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.
+ ... no discrepancies found.
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 160          Page: 8
+
+Searching for Overflow threshold:
+This may generate an error.
+Can `Z = -Y' overflow?
+Trying it on Y = -Infinity .
+Seems O.K.
+Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
+Overflow saturates at V0 = Infinity .
+No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308
+                           nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
+Any overflow signal separating this * from the one
+above is a DEFECT.
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 190          Page: 9
+
+
+What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?
+    Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...  Infinity .
+
+    Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...  NaN .
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 220          Page: 10
+
+
+
+No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered.
+Rounding appears to conform to the proposed IEEE standard P754.
+The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!
+END OF TEST.