https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454
Bug 24454 depends on bug 10632, which changed state.
Bug 10632 Summary: Numerical result differs from Sun JDK -- strictfp not
supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10632
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-30 13:36 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10632 ***
--
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca 2005-10-21 19:04
---
Looking at the two other bug reports, it looks like this might be a duplicate
of PR java/10632. So feel free to close is as a dup.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454
--- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 15:14 ---
The bug about incorrect parsing and rounding of floating-point
literals is PR java/23432 and that about no support for strictfp
is PR java/10632. If this bug report is about either of these,
it can be closed as a dup
--- Comment #7 from olivier_thomann at sympatico dot ca 2005-10-21 12:46
---
The problem seemed to be with precision in the floating point literal. When
converting a floating point literal to its double/float value, it ended up
having an unexpected value.
--
olivier_thomann at sympa
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:58 ---
gcj doesn't support strcitfp. The reserved word is allowed but ignored.
The main casualty of this is x86, where we fail some tests because of excess
precision.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454
--- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> It would be nice if you could at least indicate what kind
> of non-compliance you are talking of here. Is it strictfp,
> accuracy of results, rounding of floating-point literals,
> or so
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:23 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
> compiler into ECJ using GCJ. The goal was to provide an executable form of
> Eclipse's compiler. Unfortunately
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-20 17:06 ---
I think this is more of a duplicate of PR 10632.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24454
--
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed
10 matches
Mail list logo
