..I was thinking along those lines. That's why I suggested to Scott that he append an L to the integer in his division.
Still, it's an interesting thing he's hit on.
Yes..
..I was thinking along those lines. That's why I suggested to Scott that he append an L to the integer in his division.
Still, it's an interesting thing he's hit on. -drl
|
C decimal question:
- (admin)
- (53)
- Jan. 3, 2003, 05:53:14 PM EST
Equality on Real/Double is always a crapshoot
- (tablizer)
- Jan. 3, 2003, 06:04:04 PM EST
Don't know...
- (Simon_Jester)
- Jan. 3, 2003, 06:04:45 PM EST
Re: C decimal question:
- (deSitter)
- (1)
- Jan. 3, 2003, 09:26:50 PM EST
Makes no difference.
- (admin)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:15:39 AM EST
The boolean compare operators
- (ChrisR)
- (36)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 02:12:52 AM EST
I've done the subtract
- (admin)
- (35)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 08:50:00 AM EST
Assembly dump?
- (ChrisR)
- (22)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 12:57:27 PM EST
I did my dump with GDB
- (Arkadiy)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 02:11:21 PM EST
What I get:
- (admin)
- (20)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:34:38 AM EST
Speculating...
- (ChrisR)
- (19)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:49:00 AM EST
gcc 2.95.4 results
- (admin)
- (18)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 11:06:04 AM EST
Re: gcc 2.95.4 results
- (deSitter)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 11:35:48 AM EST
EBP is base of stack frame
- (Arkadiy)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 01:18:01 PM EST
I86 Assembly is not my specialty...
- (ChrisR)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 12:30:53 PM EST
ASM Comments
- (ChrisR)
- (13)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 02:12:59 PM EST
Errrr...
- (admin)
- (12)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 03:08:52 PM EST
Getting ASM from VC6
- (deSitter)
- (11)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:06:35 PM EST
Results
- (deSitter)
- (10)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:25:49 PM EST
Request...
- (ChrisR)
- (9)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:34:54 PM EST
Re: Request...
- (deSitter)
- (8)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:36:04 PM EST
Trimming it down...
- (ChrisR)
- (7)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:57:34 PM EST
Re: Trimming it down...
- (deSitter)
- (6)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 04:57:55 PM EST
Scratches head...
- (ChrisR)
- (5)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 06:07:55 PM EST
Re: Scratches head...
- (deSitter)
- (4)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 08:51:33 PM EST
Thanks...
- (ChrisR)
- (3)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:27:16 PM EST
BTW
- (deSitter)
- (2)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:29:58 PM EST
Hmmmm
- (ChrisR)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:10:48 PM EST
puts("42");
-NT
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:21:20 PM EST
gcc 2.95.26
- (ChrisR)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 06:13:49 PM EST
Did you try it with optimizations off?
-NT
- (deSitter)
- (7)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 01:12:28 PM EST
A really good optimizing compiler...
- (ChrisR)
- (6)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 01:21:38 PM EST
Yes..
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 01:35:10 PM EST
Compiler has no way to predict how pow() is implemented
- (Arkadiy)
- (4)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 02:13:15 PM EST
IEEE
- (deSitter)
- (2)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 02:23:03 PM EST
pow() is library, not hardware
- (Arkadiy)
- (1)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 07:14:41 PM EST
True
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 07:38:57 PM EST
Re: Compiler has no way to predict how pow() is implemented
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 5, 2003, 08:57:17 PM EST
An option of interest?
- (ChrisR)
- (3)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 01:13:29 PM EST
I'll look into that. Datum: gcc 3.2.1 on glibc 2.3.1
-NT
- (admin)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 05:56:33 PM EST
Doesn't seem to make any difference.
- (admin)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:12:59 AM EST
Re: Doesn't seem to make any difference.
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 11:36:57 AM EST
Not a direct answer, but still on-topic.
- (static)
- Jan. 4, 2003, 04:52:08 AM EST
RESOLUTION:
- (admin)
- (10)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 07:34:23 PM EST
A caveat from Borland:
- (a6l6e6x)
- (6)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 08:14:49 PM EST
This was slightly different.
- (admin)
- (5)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 08:17:18 PM EST
Re: This was slightly different.
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:11:32 PM EST
Oh - to discover a real compiler problem
- (deSitter)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:36:04 PM EST
This is not considered a compiler problem by the GCC folks.
- (admin)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:18:20 PM EST
Scott, that's a bug worthy of catching
- (Simon_Jester)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:34:21 PM EST
Fun to track down, at least.
- (admin)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:37:27 PM EST
Re: RESOLUTION:
- (deSitter)
- (2)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:03:59 PM EST
Historically speaking...
- (ChrisR)
- (1)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 09:53:48 PM EST
Re: Historically speaking...
- (deSitter)
- Jan. 6, 2003, 10:04:39 PM EST