Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1

> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 05:58:39PM +0000, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > In my limited testing, the only variable was the compiler. I did not
> > change the C library. So, one can point fingers at the compiler for not
> > behaving the same as the old compiler, or one can surmise that there is
> > a deeper story of older C library misbehavior which was covered up by
> > the older compiler in a great conspiracy. I leaned toward blaming the
> > compiler, on the assumption that for most simple math compilers probably
> > generate inline code rather than going to a library. It may be that for
> > any compiler at high optimization levels you tend to see rounding
> > problems since they don't bother cleaning up results.
> 
> FWIW, I understand this to be a problem mostly on the x86 architecture, 
> where the floating point registers have higher precision than memory
> storage.  Thus the results are somewhat unpredictable, depending on whether
> registers are spilled into memory.  The -ffloat-store will help with
> explictly named variables, but not temporary intermediate results.

Yes 80-bits vs. 64-bits.  If the computation hits memory, you loose
precision.  A definate problem, and compiler-specific.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026