This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libstdc++/5875: operator<<(double) doesn't allow printing full precision (3.0 regression)
- From: paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org, snyder at fnal dot gov
- Date: 8 Mar 2002 00:38:24 -0000
- Subject: Re: libstdc++/5875: operator<<(double) doesn't allow printing full precision (3.0 regression)
- Reply-to: paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org, snyder at fnal dot gov, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
Synopsis: operator<<(double) doesn't allow printing full precision (3.0 regression)
Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->paolo
Responsible-Changed-By: paolo
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Mar 7 16:38:24 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Triaged.
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: paolo
State-Changed-When: Thu Mar 7 16:38:24 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Hi!
I think your analysis is correct (as it was the first time,
by the way ;-) and I would suggest posting directly the
patch in the libstdc++ list. However, if you want to
provide a testcase, you should do this as a patch against
the concerned testsuite file, in the standard form based on
the use of VERIFY, portable (this is the tricky point)
across archs characterized by different machine precisions.
I mean, do you think it would be safe testing:
VERIFY(d - pi == 0.0) ??
I don't think so. What do you suggest then?
Ciao, Paolo.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=5875