From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11453 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 15:49:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11436 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 15:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 15:49:30 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 523EAF2DAA; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:49:30 -0400 (EDT) To: aph@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, matt@3am-software.com Subject: Re: real.c implementation Message-Id: <20021022154930.523EAF2DAA@nile.gnat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:04:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01342.txt.bz2 > >I agree. gcj, if course, requires exact IEEE float conversion and > >relies on gcc to do it right, > > And what happens if the platform doesn't have IEEE floating point and > uses a different floating point format? Obviously an even vaguely correct Java implementation requires a target that is at least vaguely IEEE compliant. So if you have nothing like IEEE floating-point in sight, you have to either write an emulator (and consider the emulator to be the target of code generation), or forget about having an even vaguely correct Java implementation. Of course for Ada, the situation is more complex, Ada has a precise arithmetic model that is parametrized by the target, and carefully designed to accomodate all usual computer floating-point arithmetic. So "correct" for Ada is quite target dependent when it comes to floating-point.