http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #30 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-02 16:29:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #29) > And for the sake of completeness the evaluation of sub above and > x = (x + 2.d0**52) - 2.d0**52 > should behave consistently if I read your Fortran standard > quotations correctly. Well, it kind of does, only when mixing (in GCC) -funsafe-math-optimizations with -fprotect-parens or (in ifort) "-assume protect_parens" with a non-strict -fp-model, you get a different results: 1.0 with the () version and 1.3 with the 'tmp' version.
