------- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2005-06-15 17:08 ------- Oops, forget my comment. There is a bug, but 5.1.2.3#13 / 6.3.1.5#2 / 6.3.1.8#2 is not related to it if gcc does reduce the precision (due to the "volatile", that in fact prevents bug 323 from occurring here, right?).
Well, if gcc assumes more or less that all the types have the same range and precision when doing optimization, then this could indeed be seen as bug 323. It would be interesting to know how gcc deduced (wrongly) that it could do the change concerning the neg. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
