On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 06:55:45PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > | On 2007-01-16 13:41:16 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > | > To be clear, in my opinion, this should always be selected by an > > | > option, it should never be default behaviour for any target. > > | > > | I disagree. One should get correct results by default. > > > > Once we have an implemented solution, we can quibble over whether it > > should be on by default or not. That debate will be supported by > > sample of hard data. Once we have an implementation. > > I wonder why the call to div/ldiv/lldiv says the behavior is undefined while > % is defined, that seems wrong. > > The specific wording from the standard is "If either part of the result > cannot be represented, the behavior is undefined." So why is % different > from those functions?
Let's keep the two issues separate. Clearly some users want a solution; if people are willing to contribute a solution we should accept it. There appears to be controversy over the language requirement. If a solution is contributed, then the default setting of the switch (whether on or off by default) is a separate matter. We might even consider doing a survey: what do the users want? Benchmark wars might also have an impact. Does icc generate a SIGFPE? What's the effect on benchmarks? Some users might want to pay the price to be sure the trap is avoided, others might not.