This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Haren Visavadia <themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:06:24 -0400
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]
References: <20050530201840.57423.qmail@web25706.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Haren Visavadia wrote:

--- Robert Dewar wrote:
Haren Visavadia wrote:

--- Robert Dewar wrote:

I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases.
why? You have some inaccurate model of computation,
which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed.
Floating-point semantics are indeed tricky.
Why are extra switches added onto the test.c and not
test-case.c?


I assume you mean why is an extra switch needed in
one case and not the other? Well the answer is that
the optimization that causes extra precision for
one of the operands applies in one case and not the
other. It is often tricky to know exactly what the
effects of optimization are.

References:
- Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]
  - From: Haren Visavadia

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]