Hi,
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
Did I understand correctly, only 4.6, not 4.7? Works for me but seems a
little unusual not applying anything to mainline.
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.
I would suggest adding something to the audit trail of 49152. I
understand that otherwise for this specific type of error message people
will lean toward not printing the constants. In general, I (we) hear
you, of course, it's a lond standing issue, isn't it?
Paolo.
