From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24947 invoked by alias); 14 May 2004 18:24:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24940 invoked by uid 48); 14 May 2004 18:24:03 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 11:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040514182403.24939.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040514162247.15437.lani@oas.ca> References: <20040514162247.15437.lani@oas.ca> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/15437] int vs const int computation: different answers X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg01518.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-14 18:24 ------- I think the general answer here is that converting doubles to integers is not a stable operation in the vicinity of the integer you expect. I agree that this leads to a surprising result in your particular case, but it would be just as easy to trigger with slightly more complex cases and very hard to make the compiler stable against these kinds of things. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15437