Add missing assumptions in GHC.Internal.Real.div and its tests. Use div instead of / in the spec #2339
+51
−4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…iv instead of / in the spec Co-authored-by: Marco Bazzani <114893351+mbazzani@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Facundo Domínguez <facundo.dominguez@tweag.io> Co-authored-by: Roland Coeurjoly <rolandcoeurjoly@gmail.com>
…tive, result is smaller than dividend
Co-authored-by: Facundo Domínguez <facundominguez@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Facundo Domínguez <facundominguez@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Facundo Domínguez <facundominguez@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is a continuation of #2311.
Co-authors are:
iterateTo0definition from Specification of div seems to be incorrect #2285)GHC.Internal.Real.divin Add missing assumptions in GHC.Real.div #2311)I would also be interested in adding
quickchecktests for the specs, as suggested by @ranjitjhala in #2285 (comment), but I think it would be better to do that in a separate PR.Tested locally.