From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28385 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2002 15:56:01 -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 28369 invoked by uid 71); 2 Nov 2002 15:56:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 07:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021102155601.28368.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Toon Moene Subject: Re: c/8395: gcc 2.95.4 and 3.2 generate wrong code for double on intel Reply-To: Toon Moene X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/8395; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Toon Moene To: Marco Bernardo Cc: Bruce Allen , Bruce Allen , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/8395: gcc 2.95.4 and 3.2 generate wrong code for double on intel Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:56:04 +0100 Marco Bernardo wrote: > 1. Some colleagues of mine tried to compile and run the same program > on other platforms, in particular on a sparc machine, and the output > turned out to be > -6 -1.2 5 0 -6 0 > Why is that? Isn't the IEEE 754 standard adopted on sparc machines? Yes. For further explanations, see the "Further Readings" item on our home page: http://gcc.gnu.org -> "Further Readings" (left column) -> Differences among IEEE 754 implementations (by Doug Priest) -- Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)