From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27998 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 18:54:29 -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 27988 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 18:54:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.co.uk) (213.152.55.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 18:54:28 -0000 Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1844AF-00035s-00; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:54:03 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:35:00 -0000 From: Neil Booth To: Robert Dewar Cc: aph@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: real.c implementation Message-ID: <20021022185403.GB11752@daikokuya.co.uk> References: <20021022110137.BF977F29F2@nile.gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021022110137.BF977F29F2@nile.gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01368.txt.bz2 Robert Dewar wrote:- > > This is the part I don't understand. On a machine with IEEE format > > arithmetic all langauges benefit if floating-point literals are > > generated precisely, even if the language specification does not > > require it. > > First, "generated precisely" is not well defined (and as I have pointed out > in a previous message, for example, Ada and Java have different requirements > for what precisely means). I don't understand why your argument doesn't apply to having Ada a completely separate codebase to GCC? After all, it has different requirements to C, for example. Neil.