--- Comment #1 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 09:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=15860)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15860action=view)
The program's source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737
--- Comment #2 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=15861)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15861action=view)
The preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-05 09:48 ---
Why do you think the results are incorrect? Did you hear aboud round-off
errors? 0.2008 cannot be represented exactly in float (nor in double) and you
cannot expect to have more that six significant digits. If you
--- Comment #4 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-07-05 09:54 ---
Not a bug.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #5 from aremo at ngi dot it 2008-07-05 10:06 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Well it certainly gives wrong results.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-07-05 10:16 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Well it certainly gives wrong results.
No! Read comment #3 and learn the primers about floating point numbers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36737
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-05 19:08 ---
You should also read http://www.validlab.com/goldberg/paper.pdf .
Well it certainly gives wrong results.
In this case, the number is not directly representable in float. You will be
able to get better precision
