On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2011 07:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> Yes, I suspect the max_digits10 patch would be definitely an improvement. > > Good. It's at the beginning of this thread, passes testing. Please have a > closer look.
I did, but you seemed to show a preference for '6' digits which prompted my comments. OK for 4.6 > > If you like it, we can have it for 4.7.0 and otherwise also mark this > specific PR as duplicate of 49152 (which, actually, for this *specific* case > leans toward not printing any constant at all, similarly to the status quo > of the C front end) I suspect printing the literal is better. I believe the actual fix is to print the lexeme as it appears in the source code.
