Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 09/21/2014 09:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: >> >> + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according >> to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. >> > Also, a hex floating point use

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl >> wrote: >> > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according >> > to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course,

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 07:57:45PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according > > to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. > > > This is before tokens happen an

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:49:53PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > On 09/21/2014 09:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according > > to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. > > > Also, a hex floating point uses p as an ex

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according > to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. This is before tokens happen and during lexing of the program. e+64 is exponent-part see 6.4.4.2. Also see

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
On 09/21/2014 09:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: + is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. Also, a hex floating point uses p as an exponent for this reason... These should just be adding integers. i = 0x3ff

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Steve Kargl
+ is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant. -- steve On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:49:54PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > No e+ is exponent marker. > >

Re: Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: No e+ is exponent marker. Thanks, Andrew > #include > #include > > int > main(void) > { > uint16_t i; > i = 0x3ff0+63; printf("%x\n", i); > i = 0x3ff1+63; printf("%x\n", i); > i = 0x3ff2+63; printf("%x\n", i);

Is this a compiler bug?

2014-09-21 Thread Steve Kargl
#include #include int main(void) { uint16_t i; i = 0x3ff0+63; printf("%x\n", i); i = 0x3ff1+63; printf("%x\n", i); i = 0x3ff2+63; printf("%x\n", i); i = 0x3ff3+63; printf("%x\n", i); i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("%x\n", i); i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("

gcc-5-20140921 is now available

2014-09-21 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20140921 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20140921/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision