On 24 April 2007 03:14, Lev Bishop wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 24 April 2007 00:53, Cary R. wrote:
>>
>>> I had some more time to look into this and when the
>>> simple C program I mentioned earlier uses variables
>>> like the other program, incorrect results are
>>> produced. I have attached this C/C++ program. I
>>> certainly don't understand what is going on. I would
>>> have expected pow to be pass-by value which should
>>> make the two calls identical from a system standpoint,
>>> but the results imply something different. Any
>>> suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>
>> The notorious PR323.
>
> Nah, in this case it's just that gcc's __builtin_pow() is more
> standards-compliant than newlib's pow().
Yeh, after a second reading through the assembly I figure you're right.
Maybe I should sleep every now and againzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
