--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-23 04:02
---
I should also point out you did not follow the instructions on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
Which explicitly point out what is requested of you for filing a bug report.
1. Source code that will compile (your exam
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 23:29
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> am i crazy?
Can you read:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=103163
Before replying again?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26428
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-22 21:16 ---
*** Bug 26431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26428
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-22 21:15 ---
*** Bug 26430 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26428
--- Comment #10 from g dot delaportas at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 20:56
---
If u don't understand that this is not right then u have a big problem in
mathematics cause bc,xcalc or whatever and all the other compilers i have
tested in other operating systems returned the actual and right
--- Comment #9 from g dot delaportas at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 20:53
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > TEST CASE
> I mean some source code.
>
Oh the source code is rather simple
float Val1,Val2,Val3;
Val1=1583.5;
Val2=583.4;
Val3=Val2-Val1;
printf("Value:
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 20:50 ---
User doesn't understand number representations in computers.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 20:48 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> TEST CASE
I mean some source code.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from g dot delaportas at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 20:46
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Well the caculator is using higher precission (maybe even unlimited) floating
> point than what your testcase would look like.
>
> Again where is the testcase?
>
> Also you should go
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 20:44 ---
Well the caculator is using higher precission (maybe even unlimited) floating
point than what your testcase would look like.
Again where is the testcase?
Also you should go read some papers about floating point in
--- Comment #4 from g dot delaportas at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 20:34
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It is abdolutely true and well known that 1583.5-583.4=1000.1
>
> Who said that 1000.1 can be repesented exactly in the computer?
>
okso explain to m
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 20:31 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It is abdolutely true and well known that 1583.5-583.4=1000.1
Who said that 1000.1 can be repesented exactly in the computer?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26428
--- Comment #2 from g dot delaportas at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 20:29
---
It is abdolutely true and well known that 1583.5-583.4=1000.1
Its defenate. Simple mathematics
Its not my problem if u have problems with maths!
Try your calculators and pleas do not reply stupid thing!
CRI
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 20:24 ---
And why do you think this is a bug?
Floating point is not the same as math as you would do on paper.
Also where is the testcase?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26428
14 matches
Mail list logo
