Roberto Bagnara writes: > Robert Dewar wrote: > > > Yes, it's a bug, is it a serious bug, no? Will real software > > be affected? no. Indeed I find any program that actually > > does this remainder operation in practice to be highly > > suspect. > > But I am not wrong if I say that a bug is a bug and must be fixed. > I was answering to a message saying (basically) "we won't fix > it since there is a performance penalty to be paid."
It wasn't saying that. My opinion at the time was (and still is) that it probably isn't a bug, and there is a performance penalty to be paid for changing the behaviour, so we shouldn't fix it. If I had believed that it surely was a bug, then I wouldn't have made the performance argument: correctness first, then performance. Andrew.
