This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 33067


On 10/10/2011 07:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
on this particular input, '6' looks OK. However, the question is why '6'? Why can't we retain the original number spelling from the source code and use that instead?
Yes, that would be 49152, no? It's quite a bit of work, I don't think somebody will be able to do that in time for 4.7.0, right? I I were a user of gcc, I would not be suprised to see 6 used, which after all it's the historical printf default, I would find it much better anyway than the current behavior. But I don't have a strong opinion, I already unassigned myself from the PR, fwiw.

Paolo.


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