Andrew Haley wrote:
Roberto Bagnara writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's a bug, is it a serious bug, no? Will real software
> > be affected? no. Indeed I find any program that actually
> > does this remainder operation in practice to be highly
> > suspect.
>
> But I am not wrong if I say that a bug is a bug and must be fixed.
> I was answering to a message saying (basically) "we won't fix
> it since there is a performance penalty to be paid."
It wasn't saying that.
My opinion at the time was (and still is) that it probably isn't a
bug, and there is a performance penalty to be paid for changing the
behaviour, so we shouldn't fix it.
If I had believed that it surely was a bug, then I wouldn't have made
the performance argument: correctness first, then performance.
Yes, of course, I think we all agree with that. Roberto was just
misreading here
Andrew.
