Recently I discovered that Java converts some very small decimal numbers to double-precision floating-point incorrectly. While investigating that bug, I stumbled upon something very strange: Java’s decimal to floating-point conversion routine, Double.parseDouble(), sometimes returns two different results for the same decimal string. The culprit appears to be just-in-time compilation of Double.parseDouble() into SSE instructions, which exposes an architecture-dependent bug in Java’s conversion algorithm — and another real-world example of a double rounding on underflow error. I’ll describe the problem, and take you through the detective work to find its cause.

Continue reading …

While verifying the fix to the Java 2.2250738585072012e-308 bug I found an OpenJDK testcase for verifying conversions of edge case subnormal double-precision numbers. I ran the testcase, expecting it to work — but it failed! I determined it fails because Java converts some subnormal numbers incorrectly.

(By the way, this bug exists in prior versions of Java — it has nothing to do with the fix.)

Continue reading …

Java’s decimal to floating-point conversion routine, the doubleValue() method of its FloatingDecimal class, goes into an infinite loop when converting the decimal string 2.2250738585072012e-308 to double-precision binary floating-point. I took a closer look at the bug, by tracing the doubleValue() method in the Eclipse IDE for Java (thanks to Konstantin Preißer for helping me set that up). What I found was that our initial analysis of the bug was wrong; what actually happens is that doubleValue()’s correction loop oscillates between two values, 0x1p-1022 and 0x0.fffffffffffffp-1022.

Continue reading …

Konstantin Preißer made an interesting discovery, after reading my article “PHP Hangs On Numeric Value 2.2250738585072011e-308”: Java — both its runtime and compiler — go into an infinite loop when converting the decimal number 2.2250738585072012e-308 to double-precision binary floating-point. This number is supposed to convert to 0x1p-1022, which is DBL_MIN; instead, Java gets stuck, oscillating between 0x1p-1022 and 0x0.fffffffffffffp-1022, the largest subnormal double-precision floating-point number.

Continue reading …

Recently I discovered a serious bug in x87 builds of PHP: PHP’s decimal to floating-point conversion routine, zend_strtod(), went into an infinite loop when converting the decimal string 2.2250738585072011e-308 to double-precision binary floating-point. This problem was fixed with a simple one line of code change to zend_strtod.c:

This line

double aadj, aadj1, adj;

was changed to

volatile double aadj, aadj1, adj;

Why does this fix the problem? I uncovered the very specific reason: it prevents a double rounding on underflow error.

Continue reading …

<?php $d = 2.2250738585072011e-308; ?>

I hit this bug in the two places I tested for it: on Windows (PHP 5.3.1 under XAMPP 1.7.3), and on Linux (PHP Version 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.5) — both on an Intel Core Duo processor. I’ve written a bug report.

Continue reading …

In my article “Fifteen Digits Don’t Round-Trip Through SQLite Reals” I showed examples of decimal floating-point numbers — 15 significant digits or less — that don’t round-trip through double-precision binary floating-point variables stored in SQLite. The round-trip failures occur because SQLite’s floating-point to decimal conversion routine uses limited-precision floating-point arithmetic.

My quick and dirty floating-point to decimal conversion routine, which I wrote to demonstrate conversion inaccuracies caused by limited-precision, also fails to round-trip some decimal numbers of 15 digits or less. Since I hadn’t demonstrated this failure previously, I will do so here.

Continue reading …

SQLite has a limited-precision floating-point to decimal conversion routine which it uses to print double-precision floating-point values retrieved from a database. As I’ve discovered, its limited-precision conversion results in decimal numbers of 15 significant digits or less that won’t round-trip. For example, if you store the number 9.944932e+31, it will print back as 9.94493200000001e+31.

SQLite also has a limited-precision decimal to floating-point conversion routine, which it uses to convert input decimal numbers to double-precision floating-point numbers for storage in a database. I’ve found that some of its conversions are incorrect — by as many as four ULPs — and that some decimal numbers fail to round-trip because of this; “garbage in, garbage out” as they say.

Continue reading …

I’ve discovered that decimal floating-point numbers of 15 significant digits or less don’t always round-trip through SQLite. Consider this example, executed on version 3.7.3 of the pre-compiled SQLite command shell:

sqlite> create table t1(d real);
sqlite> insert into t1 values(9.944932e+31);
sqlite> select * from t1;
9.94493200000001e+31

SQLite represents a decimal floating-point number that has real affinity as a double-precision binary floating-point number — a double. A decimal number of 15 significant digits or less is supposed to be recoverable from its double-precision representation. In SQLite, however, this guarantee is not met; this is because its floating-point to decimal conversion routine is implemented in limited-precision floating-point arithmetic.

Continue reading …

In my article “Quick and Dirty Decimal to Floating-Point Conversion” I presented a small C program that uses double-precision floating-point arithmetic to convert decimal strings to binary floating-point numbers. The program converts some numbers incorrectly, despite using an algorithm that’s mathematically correct; its limited precision calculations are to blame. I dubbed the program “quick and dirty” because it’s simple, and overall converts reasonably accurately.

For this article, I took a similar approach to the conversion in the opposite direction — from binary floating-point to decimal string. I wrote a small C program that combines two mathematically correct algorithms: the classic “repeated division by ten” algorithm to convert integer values, and the classic “repeated multiplication by ten” algorithm to convert fractional values. The program uses double-precision floating-point arithmetic, so like its quick and dirty decimal to floating-point counterpart, its conversions are not always correct — though reasonably accurate. I’ll present the program and analyze some example conversions, both correct and incorrect.

Continue reading …

In my article “Inconsistent Rounding of Printed Floating-Point Numbers” I showed examples of incorrect floating-point to decimal conversions I stumbled upon — in Java, Visual Basic, JavaScript, VBScript, and OpenOffice.org Calc. In this article, I’ll explore floating-point to decimal conversions more deeply, by analyzing conversions done under four C compilers: Visual C++, MinGW GCC, Digital Mars C, and Linux GCC. I found that incorrect conversions occur in three of the four environments — in all but Linux GCC. I’ll show you some examples and explain how I found them.

Continue reading …

Hexadecimal floating-point constants, also known as hexadecimal floating-point literals, are an alternative way to represent floating-point numbers in a computer program. A hexadecimal floating-point constant is shorthand for binary scientific notation, which is an abstract — yet direct — representation of a binary floating-point number. As such, hexadecimal floating-point constants have exact representations in binary floating-point, unlike decimal floating-point constants, which in general do not.

Hexadecimal floating-point constants are useful for two reasons: they bypass decimal to floating-point conversions, which are sometimes done incorrectly, and they bypass floating-point to decimal conversions which, even if done correctly, are often limited to a fixed number of decimal digits. In short, their advantage is that they allow for direct control of floating-point variables, letting you read and write their exact contents.

In this article, I’ll show you what hexadecimal floating-point constants look like, and how to use them in C.

Continue reading …