From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 994 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2005 11:11:51 -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 964 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2005 11:11:40 -0000 Received: from sophia.inria.fr (HELO sophia.inria.fr) (138.96.64.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:11:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5IBBKav021234; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:11:20 +0200 Received: from papillon.inria.fr (papillon.inria.fr [138.96.83.23]) by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5IBB7lQ021205; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:11:07 +0200 Received: (from spion@localhost) by papillon.inria.fr (8.12.11/8.12.5) id j5IBB75w031436; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:11:07 +0200 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:11:00 -0000 From: Sylvain Pion To: Mattias Karlsson Cc: Vincent Lefevre , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters Message-ID: <20050618111107.GA30014@papillon.inria.fr> References: <20050615221456.GL4741@ay.vinc17.org> <20050616120845.GR4741@ay.vinc17.org> <1118924420.7720.6.camel@linux.site> <20050616160030.GY4741@ay.vinc17.org> <42B1A4EA.9050901@adacore.com> <20050616185255.GA4741@ay.vinc17.org> <42B1F4FB.6020607@adacore.com> <20050618065247.GC3328@ay.vinc17.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (sophia.inria.fr [138.96.64.20]); Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:11:07 +0200 (MEST) X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00727.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 12:54:40PM +0200, Mattias Karlsson wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >On 2005-06-16 17:54:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > >>As you well know, not everyone agrees this is a bug, and this does > >>not have to do with performance. Saying over and over again that you > >>think it is a bug does not make it so. > > > >I haven't seen any correct argument why it could not be a bug. > >Saying that the x86 processor is buggy is just completely silly. > >Only some gcc developers think so. > > Don't know about you, but I consider any processor that is unable to store > a register to memory and then read back the same value to be buggy. That would indeed be a funny kind of processor, but x86 can store its registers in memory exactly : simply store/reread them as long doubles. > Sure, you can change rounding precision but according to my 2003 version > of "IA-32 Intel(r) Architecture Software Developer's Manual - Volume > 1: Basic Architecture" > a) That takes at least 4 instructions. > b) Only affects some instructions, and then only the result. > c) Only affects the significand and not the exponent. > > Disclaimer: I haven't done any testing to verify that this is actually the > case since I have no access to x86 hardware. -- Sylvain