Re: Possible regression from gcc-3.0.x to gcc-3.2.x with std::setprecision

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

> > Indeed, and fixing it seems easy. But *why*?!?
> >
> > Why, that is, more than digits10 + 1 digits are necessary for min()?
> I think example code that demonstrates this issue should help with our
> confusion...
;) Yes.

Speaking of confusion (mine!) could you please give me your opinion on
libstdc++/9024 itself and, in case you think it is really a bug, my:

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-12/msg00245.html

???

Thanks,
Paolo.