public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/34230] Expressions of parameters evaluated with too high precision
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071128200817.13370.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-34230-13404@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #10 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2007-11-28 20:08 -------
Subject: Re: Expressions of parameters evaluated with too high precision
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:23:57PM -0000, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> To sum up my point of view: -fno-range-check is about accepting code which is,
> strictly speaking, invalid. It is thus an extension and we should be guided by
> a) what other compilers do, b) consistency, c) least surprise. Moreover, I
> don't think changing that behaviour would hurt maintainability much (but I
> might be wrong; we'll know when someone starts working on it).
>
I have a patch that does what people seem to want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34230
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-28 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-25 21:44 [Bug fortran/34230] New: " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-26 0:12 ` [Bug fortran/34230] " kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-27 21:57 ` terry at chem dot gu dot se
2007-11-27 22:45 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-27 22:57 ` terry at chem dot gu dot se
2007-11-28 0:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-28 18:03 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-28 19:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-28 19:24 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-28 19:35 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-28 20:08 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu [this message]
2007-11-30 4:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-30 4:18 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-02 21:02 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071128200817.13370.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).