https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78696
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> The bug behind the wrong output in comment #0 is in the format_floating
> function with an unknown argument failing to use the precision. The
> following simple patch fixes that.
>
> @@ -1261,9 +1277,9 @@ format_floating (const conversion_spec &spec, int
> res.range.min = 2 + (prec < 0 ? 6 : prec);
>
> /* Compute the maximum just once. */
> - static const int f_max[] = {
> - format_floating_max (double_type_node, 'f'),
> - format_floating_max (long_double_type_node, 'f')
> + const int f_max[] = {
> + format_floating_max (double_type_node, 'f', prec),
> + format_floating_max (long_double_type_node, 'f', prec)
> };
> res.range.max = width == INT_MIN ? HOST_WIDE_INT_MAX : f_max [ldbl];
I'm happy you've removed the static, because it performs a runtime construction
of the array. But: 1) the comment is now wrong 2) it is really weird and
inefficient way of writing:
if (width == INT_MIN)
res.range.max = HOST_WIDE_INT_MAX;
else
res.range.max = format_floating_max (ldbl ? long_double_type_node
: double_type_node, 'f', prec);
> @@ -1279,9 +1295,9 @@ format_floating (const conversion_spec &spec, int
> res.range.min = 2 + (prec < 0 ? 6 : prec);
>
> /* Compute the maximum just once. */
> - static const int g_max[] = {
> - format_floating_max (double_type_node, 'g'),
> - format_floating_max (long_double_type_node, 'g')
> + const int g_max[] = {
> + format_floating_max (double_type_node, 'g', prec),
> + format_floating_max (long_double_type_node, 'g', prec)
> };
> res.range.max = width == INT_MIN ? HOST_WIDE_INT_MAX : g_max [ldbl];
Similarly.
