From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-370073-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3586 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2011 12:56:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 3577 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2011 12:56:41 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:56:28 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/33067] Awkward long decimal expansion for double literal in error.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:56:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-33067-4-Wp6kSnWhca@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-33067-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-33067-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D33067

--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-1=
0-10 12:54:54 UTC ---
Sorry, I'm an engineer (in this context). For me the issue is only the
following: if I were a user of 4.7.0, I would rather prefer seeing:

33067.C:2:18: error: no match for =E2=80=98operator<=E2=80=99 in
=E2=80=981.100000000000000088817841970012523233890533447265625e+0 < t=E2=80=
=99

or

33067.C:2:18: error: no match for =E2=80=98operator<=E2=80=99 in =E2=80=981=
.1e+0 < t=E2=80=99

?

Any other discussion, in this context, does not make sense to me, sorry. I'm
not going to follow it. If the maintainers will reply on gcc-patches they w=
ant
the latter, fine I'll do it, otherwise I'll just move to something else.