From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8588 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2002 00:38:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8538 invoked by uid 61); 8 Mar 2002 00:38:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020308003824.8537.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, paolo@gcc.gnu.org, snyder@fnal.gov From: paolo@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, paolo@gcc.gnu.org, snyder@fnal.gov, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailer: gnatsweb 2.9.3 Subject: Re: libstdc++/5875: operator<<(double) doesn't allow printing full precision (3.0 regression) X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: operator<<(double) doesn't allow printing full precision (3.0 regression) Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->paolo Responsible-Changed-By: paolo Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Mar 7 16:38:24 2002 Responsible-Changed-Why: Triaged. State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: paolo State-Changed-When: Thu Mar 7 16:38:24 2002 State-Changed-Why: Hi! I think your analysis is correct (as it was the first time, by the way ;-) and I would suggest posting directly the patch in the libstdc++ list. However, if you want to provide a testcase, you should do this as a patch against the concerned testsuite file, in the standard form based on the use of VERIFY, portable (this is the tricky point) across archs characterized by different machine precisions. I mean, do you think it would be safe testing: VERIFY(d - pi == 0.0) ?? I don't think so. What do you suggest then? Ciao, Paolo. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=5875