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