[C++ Patch / RFC] PR 33067

Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini@oracle.com
Mon Oct 10 17:32:00 GMT 2011

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.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list