From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1650 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2008 19:22:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 754 invoked by uid 48); 9 Dec 2008 19:20:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081209192026.753.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/36912] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with "-frounding-math -g" In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00859.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-09 19:20 ------- With respect to Comment #4: I see no reason for C++ to be different than C in this respect, and thus I see no reason not to perform the computation at compile-time. In general, although some in the committees do not seem to care, users expect C to be a subset of C++. Certainly, wherever the standards permit us to do so, we should make GNU C and GNU C++ behave identically; compiling C code as C++ with the same toolset and getting different results leads to user surprise. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36912