Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1
От | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 366EBA4F.FB6A5EB4@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1
Re: [HACKERS] problem compiling with egcs 1.1.1 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Are you sure you are right to blame the compiler? I should think this > would be a C library issue, not the compiler's fault... Well, I've *got* to blame something! ;) 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. Don't know what the real story is, just that the ".9999" behavior reminds me of my Unix boxes from a dozen years ago, not my recent ones. So, has anyone tried a new egcs with a new glibc2? I figured that since Oleg is a bleeding-edge kind of guy (new egcs, Linux kernel 2.1.1xx, etc.) he probably has that new combination. - Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: