[AVR] result of i32 as f32 is incorrect

[jsen-]

I tried this code: https://github.com/jsen-/rust-i32-as-f32-issue-repro

I expected to see this happen:
Every i32 value converted to f32 should have equal decimal part and zeros-only after decimal point.

Instead, this happened:

i32   manual   using "as"
      conv.
----------------------------
0     0.0000   0.0000
1     1.0000   1.0078
2     2.0000   2.0313
3     3.0000   2.0469
4     4.0000   4.1250
5     5.0000   4.1563
6     6.0000   4.1875
7     7.0000   4.2188
8     8.0000   8.5000
9     9.0000   8.5625
10   10.0000   8.6250
11   11.0000   8.6875
12   12.0000   8.7500
13   13.0000   8.8125
14   14.0000   8.8750
15   15.0000   8.9375
16   16.0000  18.0000
...

full output

Meta

rustc --version --verbose:

rustc 1.48.0-nightly (0da580074 2020-09-22)
binary: rustc
commit-hash: 0da58007451a154da2480160429e1604a1f5f0ec
commit-date: 2020-09-22
host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
release: 1.48.0-nightly
LLVM version: **11.0**

tested on arduino nano

Note: I updated compiler-builtins to 0.1.36, because without this commit I was getting undefined symbols __ashlsi3 and __lshrsi3

Note2:: Debug builds don't link due to missing references core::panicking::panic::hc30e67a739c4d8d1, but that's a separate issue. Release builds fine.

[Rahix]

Note2:: Debug builds don't link due to missing references core::panicking::panic::hc30e67a739c4d8d1, but that's a separate issue. Release builds fine.

Off-topic but this is caused by rust-lang/compiler-builtins#347 ...

[aykevl]

I believe I've hit this issue too in TinyGo, if I remember correctly one of these patches would fix it:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86546
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86547

[Patryk27]

Currently the original code with .to_utf8chars() crashes inside simavr:

Loaded 19156 .text at address 0x0
Loaded 5062 .data
CORE: *** Invalid write address PC=017c SP=08ff O=920d Address 0000=78 low registers
avr_sadly_crashed
avr_gdb_init listening on port 1234

... but changing the impl ufmt::uDisplay to:

impl<const S: usize> ufmt::uDisplay for Buffer<S> {
    fn fmt<W: ufmt::uWrite + ?Sized>(
        &self,
        f: &mut ufmt::Formatter<'_, W>,
    ) -> Result<(), W::Error> {
        for ch in self.0.iter() {
            f.write_char(*ch as char);
        }

        Ok(())
    }
}

... seems to render a correct code, one that yields the expected results:

0  0.0000.........................  0.0000...........................
1  1.0000.........................  1.0000...........................
2  2.0000.........................  2.0000...........................
3  3.0000.........................  3.0000...........................
4  4.0000.........................  4.0000...........................
5  5.0000.........................  5.0000...........................
6  6.0000.........................  6.0000...........................
7  7.0000.........................  7.0000...........................
8  8.0000.........................  8.0000...........................
9  9.0000.........................  9.0000...........................
10 10.0000......................... 10.0000...........................
11 11.0000......................... 11.0000...........................
12 12.0000......................... 12.0000...........................
13 13.0000......................... 13.0000...........................
14 14.0000......................... 14.0000...........................
15 15.0000......................... 15.0000...........................
16 16.0000......................... 16.0000...........................
17 17.0000......................... 17.0000...........................
18 18.0000......................... 18.0000...........................
19 19.0000......................... 19.0000...........................
20 20.0000......................... 20.0000...........................

(requires https://reviews.llvm.org/D114611 + #82242 (comment))

[workingjubilee]

As I understand it, this issue is resolved and adding simulation testing for functional correctness (as opposed to merely building correctly) for a tier 3 target may constitute a significant policy change, so I am closing this.