Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I don't like the word "correct" here, since the correctness > depends very much on the context.
Good point. > I disagree. The default should be a conforming C99 implementation. I suppose I need to be consistent... ;) I've said in past threads, GCC should default to -ansi -std=c99/c++98 -pedantic, and any deviation should require specification of an option. I have offered to make such a patch (in fact, I have one sitting around), but the response was somewhat tepid. > I think it would be simpler to think about individual compiler > "behaviors" related to floating-point code generation and group > them into classes later. I've said "behaviors", not "options", > since pragmas (standard or not) could be used to get different > behaviors. Okay, the light went on. Must be the lingering effects of anaesthesia. :) I need to do some thinking and studying. ..Scott
