From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11626 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2002 14:57:42 -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 10699 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2002 14:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO soliton.integrable-solutions.net) (193.51.208.222) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2002 14:57:25 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by soliton.integrable-solutions.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g9GEukD16217; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:56:46 +0200 To: Stephen L Moshier Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: real.c fails floating point tests References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Stephen L Moshier's message of "Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:37:51 -0400 (EDT)" Organization: Integrable Solutions Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00958.txt.bz2 Stephen L Moshier writes: [...] | It is hard to see how users are going to develop a degree of assurance | that the current GCC arithmetic is correct. It is perplexing, why it | was so important to remove a working arithmetic and substitute a | non-working arithmetic. That is too harsh and unfair to be a basis of a productive technical discussion. There was no concerted efforts to replace the old code with a broken one. To support various languages (mostly C and C++) requirements on numerical characteristics, it was at some point _necessary_ to rework the old difficult-to-maintain-and-to-extend code. Here, I would like to thank RTH for having done that job. Sure in some sense, we weren't expecting the first iteration to be 100% perfect (I'm not diminishing RTH's skills) from start. It is great that people like you can make reports about malfunctioning codes in the new rewrite, but I think there is no necessity (no place?) for flames about it. Thanks for the report. Yours, -- Gaby