mal (s, , sizeof (s), 0, 1);
> pp_printf (pp, " (%s)", s);
> }
> ?
Thanks.
I'm retesting the following and will commit if it succeeds since we
seem to have overwhelming consensus :).
Aldy
From 2f052904412bbe5821ee310067ad76b52980d8e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ald
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> It has been suggested that if we start bumping numbers by an ULP when
> calculating open ranges (for example the numbers less than 3.0) that
> dumping these will become increasingly harder to read, and instead we
> should opt for
On 9/22/22 10:49, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
It has been suggested that if we start bumping numbers by an ULP when
calculating open ranges (for example the numbers less than 3.0) that
dumping these will become increasingly harder to read, and instead we
should opt for the hex
If it's not too cumbersome, I suggest dumping both.
In my neck-of-the-woods (meteorology) I have seen this done just to
ensure that algorithms that are supposed to be bit-reproducable actually
are - and that it can be checked visually.
Kind regards,
Toon.
On 9/22/22 18:49, Aldy Hernandez
It has been suggested that if we start bumping numbers by an ULP when
calculating open ranges (for example the numbers less than 3.0) that
dumping these will become increasingly harder to read, and instead we
should opt for the hex representation. I still find the floating
point representation
