Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, I would consider polite to CC: me on the mail if you quote and > debate my statements.
I meant no offense, and thought that I *had* CC'd you on the message. >>The ISO Standard doesn't prevent GCC from being *better* than >>specified, does it? Are we somehow breaking ISO compliance by doing >>math right? Is it so wrong to try and fix a problem that frustrates >>many people and makes GCC look bad? > > Where exactly do I say that it is wrong to provide a patch that makes GCC > better in this regard? As a bugmaster, I just decided to consider this not a > bug, in the strictest meaning of "bug". If you want to file in Bugzilla an > enhancement proposal about adding options/modes about higher FPU precision, I > would not object. I've been suggesting various ways to enhance, or at better delineate, floating-point in GCC. Once I've got a good idea of the best way to approach this (and I've had some excellent feedback), I will indeed submit a patch. I even have one started... Given the number of "duplicate filings" associated with 323, I assumed that filing another item on the topic would be ineffective. > Also, it seems you have the wrong belief that, if bug 323 were confirmed in > Bugzilla, a patch would automatically appear. No; my objection is to having people's concerns flatly rejected. It is not clear from reading the message on 323 that a "add an option" patch would be considered. If anything, I'm very pleased with the way people have handled the bugs I've reported; all but one (or more than 20) have been fixed. Good stuff. >>With the attitude shown by Giovanni, there's really no point in >>submitting a patch, is there? Dozens of people have reported this >>problem, potential solutions exist, but any patch is going to be >>ignored because the bug isn't considered a bug by the Powers That Be. > > You seem to believe that a patch can be accepted in GCC only if it fixes a > bug. No, my experience is that a patch is only accepted if it has already been approved, at least on a conceptual level. I've tried the "make a patch without talking to anyone" approach, and wasted a lot of time. > I hope to have clarified my position. And I mine. ..Scott
