https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Note, internally in standard excess precision, 4.2 seen by the lexer is > actually > EXCESS_PRECISION <double, 4.2L>, Then _that_ is the problem. The literal "4.2" simply is not a long double literal "4.2L". > when it is assigned to a double variable or > cast > to double (i.e. in places where C/C++ require the excess precision to be > converted to the narrower one) it is rounded to double, > but when used as (long double)4.2 it is the same as 4.2L I disagree. As "4.2" is "(double)4.2" then therefore "(long double)4.2" should be the same as "(long double)(double)4.2". > and even (long double)d == (long double)4.2 should behave > the same as (long double)d == 4.2 and d == 4.2. On this we agree, all these expressions should behave the same. But I say they should _not_ behave the same as "(long double)d == 4.2L".
