--- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-29 13:42
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Except, the value could have been spilled and reloaded from registers
> between those two source lines, which on x86, is where the problem comes
> from.
> The p
--- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-28 23:05
---
323 compares 2 values across a function call ... somthing a programmer can
reasonably consider. My problem occurs with 2 successive lines of code
admittedly with 2 compares per line). I don't have a pr
--- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-28 22:46
---
my mistake in the previous post
how can both if-checks be false?
val <= 1.0
and
val > 1.0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20674
--- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-28 22:44
---
I tried this on a 64-bit system, and noticed I needed to compile -m32 to get
the error (this was on an older gcc level, though. 3.2.3)
I don't understand how this can be a precision problem. How can bo
--- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-28 22:09
---
I do not think this is a precision problem. Although -ffloat-store resolves the
problem, I feel this has changed the behavior of the program sufficiently to
avoid the problem ... I should not have mentioned
: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: piaget at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i586-mandrake-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i586-mandrake-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20674
