On 13/11/2007, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:33:41PM -0800, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > > It may well be there's an issue with gcc's optimizer, since the problem > > goes away without optimization, but I think it's also fair to say that > > the definition of FLOAT_IS_ZERO in include/parrot/misc.h is > > perhaps not optimal here. I'd prefer the simpler definition: > > > > #define FLOAT_IS_ZER0(f) ((f) == 0.0) > > > > but I didn't get anywhere last time I proposed that. I don't know > > what else to do. > > I suggested > > f >= 0.0 && f <= 0.0 > > which I believe is identical, even in the face of NaNs, but should also shut > up the whining, er, warning, about comparison. > > Because I would be so bold as to say that the constant zero would be > exempted from any useful warning about floating point equality check.
The floating point comparison warning isn't switched on (in gcc) anymore. If it's on somewhere else, then I'd like to know so that we can switch off the warning on that compiler. Paul
