On 14/11/2007, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:20:40AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Nicholas Clark via RT 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. > > Yes, as long as whatever expressions we use for "f" don't have any > side effects (but you both already know this :-). > > > You're probably right. However, given that gcc currently throws over a > > thousand warnings it's hard to get worried about about another one or two. > > IIRC, part of the reason we went to some effort to shut up the > floating point comparison warnings from gcc was because there > were significantly more than one or two of them. :-) > > But like Andy I've always been strongly in favor of the ((f) == 0.0) > approach and simply turning off the float_equals warnings in gcc.
The float_equals warnings in gcc *are* off. So why is this warning a problem (maybe I've missed something)? I also don't see over 1000 warnings with gcc (I've got gcc 3.4.5 on Gentoo Linux x86); I have in the order of 100 atm. If we *are* seeing over 1000 warnings with gcc, then either we should turn the warnings level down a bit, or the warnings should be fixed (like some warnings about required non-null arguments I know). Paul
