jFP religious wars

[R. D. Flowers]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
> 
> | Zack Weinberg wrote:
> | > "R. D. Flowers" <rd@chatta.us> writes:
> | >
> | >>would not some flag like -fp-pedantic (or however to fit in the
> | >>namespace) be a good idea (for both decent sets of folks: the
> | >>fast-and-a-little-dirty and the clean-and-a-little-slow people)?
> | > Maybe.  What would it do?
> | 
> | I don't think this would work. There is nothing "pedantic" in
> | the carefully formulated rules that make it easier/possible
> | to write accurate floating-point code. It is far better to
> | have the existing flags for -ffast-math etc, which clearly
> | warn that the resulting semantics may be unreliable.
> 
> Fully agreed.
> 
> | The use of -pedantic to cover little used language features
> | or rules is one thing, the use of a flag like this to give
> | incorrect semantics.


Welllll, as far as what to do, you folks probably do in fact know best.

But, if some code is broken by -pedantic, isn't it also incorrect in SOME picky litte sense? 

That people in some of their actual situations might not care about? Similar (in some actual situations) to not caring about that final shred of accuracy?


> 
> In fact, the flag "-pedantic" is misnamed -- at least, for what it does
> currently in C++ (I think the same is true for C).  It is there only
> for historical accident.  Multiplying that naming by a factor greater
> than 1 would be misguided.
> 
> -- Gaby
> 
> 
> 


-- 

R. D. Flowers, O. H.
Xinna R. Coloohiy
The Bear At Home
Now a single dad.

I   M i s s   A m e r i c a

http://chalice.us/mylinks
http://chalice.us/pho
http://chalice.us/poe
http://chatta.us/resume.txt
Mailing lists at http://chatta.us

-- "He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or
their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so
by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of
the two is a burden."
-- Mohandes Ghandi

Refer !
Stop Tritium !