On 10/11/2011 03:04 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2011 12:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ // The fraction 643/2136 approximates log10(2) to 7 significant
digits.
+ int max_digits10 = 2 + (is_decimal ? fmt->p : fmt->p * 643L / 2136);
Please cite N1822 in the comment and convert it to C syn
On 10/10/2011 12:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ // The fraction 643/2136 approximates log10(2) to 7 significant digits.
+ int max_digits10 = 2 + (is_decimal ? fmt->p : fmt->p * 643L / 2136);
Please cite N1822 in the comment and convert it to C syntax. OK with
that change.
Jason
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> + // The fraction 643/2136 approximates log10(2) to 7 significant digits.
Whatever the conclusion on the approach to take, note that we don't use
C++ comments in GCC at present.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Hi,
On 10/10/2011 07:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yes, I suspect the max_digits10 patch would be definitely an improvement.
Good. It's at the beginning of this thread, passes testing. Please have a
closer look.
I did, but you seemed to show a preference for '6' digits which
prompted my comme
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 07:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I suspect the max_digits10 patch would be definitely an improvement.
>
> Good. It's at the beginning of this thread, passes testing. Please have a
> closer look.
I did, but you seeme
On 10/10/2011 07:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yes, I suspect the max_digits10 patch would be definitely an improvement.
Good. It's at the beginning of this thread, passes testing. Please have
a closer look.
If you like it, we can have it for 4.7.0 and otherwise also mark this
specific PR as
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 07:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> A GCC user not interested in numerics probably won't care. However, I do
>> not think that extends to people who do care about numerics and have
>> literals in their program. If GCC displ
On 10/10/2011 07:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
A GCC user not interested in numerics probably won't care. However, I
do not think that extends to people who do care about numerics and
have literals in their program. If GCC displays an error message with
literals truncated, it is not at clear t
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 07:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> on this particular input, '6' looks OK. However, the question is why '6'?
>> Why can't we retain the original number spelling from the source code and
>> use that instead?
>
> Yes, that w
On 10/10/2011 07:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
on this particular input, '6' looks OK. However, the question is why
'6'? Why can't we retain the original number spelling from the source
code and use that instead?
Yes, that would be 49152, no? It's quite a bit of work, I don't think
somebody w
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 02:13 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> . looks like we want to do something else, not printing the number at all.
>> See audit trail.
>
> An option, for 4.7 at least, would be, instead of just closing 33067 as a
> duplicate of the
On 10/10/2011 02:13 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
. looks like we want to do something else, not printing the number at
all. See audit trail.
An option, for 4.7 at least, would be, instead of just closing 33067 as
a duplicate of the much more general 49152, doing something like:
Index: c-family/c-p
. looks like we want to do something else, not printing the number at
all. See audit trail.
Paolo.
Hi,
reporter complains that, for:
struct T {} t;
bool b = 1.1 < t;
we output (on x86_64-linux):
33067.C:2:18: error: no match for ‘operator<’ in
‘1.100088817841970012523233890533447265625e+0 < t’
which is clearly pretty dumb. In my opinion, a definite improvement
would be follo
14 matches
Mail list logo
