* Re: [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug?
2002-04-16 20:00 [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug? Richard Hirst
@ 2002-04-16 20:31 ` Andreas Schwab
2002-04-16 20:36 ` Richard Hirst
2002-04-16 20:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2002-04-16 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
Richard Hirst <rhirst@linuxcare.com> writes:
|> #include <stdio.h>
|>
|> int
|> main(int argc, char **argv)
|> {
|> long a = 0x70000037L;
|> float f = 0.01;
|> long b = a + 1L/f;
|>
|> printf("%lx, %lx\n", b, a + 100L);
|> return 0;
|> }
|>
|>
|>
|> In the above, 1/f = 100, so the two numbers printed out should be the
|> same. For me it prints out "70000080, 7000009b". Same for gcc 2.96
|> and 3.0.3.
|>
|> By trying various numbers for 'a', it appears to me that it is demoting
|> 'a' to a float when evaluating 'b', thus truncating it to 24 significant
|> bits. I thought all mixed mode arithmetic was supposed to be promoted
|> to doubles for evaluation.
No. There are no operands of type double or long double involved, so the
ususal arithmetic conversions (6.3.1.8) choose float as the common type:
Otherwise, if the corresponding real type of either operand is float,
the other operand is converted, without change of type domain, to a
type whose corresponding real type is float.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug?
2002-04-16 20:00 [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug? Richard Hirst
2002-04-16 20:31 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2002-04-16 20:36 ` Richard Hirst
2002-04-16 20:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Richard Hirst @ 2002-04-16 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> No. There are no operands of type double or long double involved, so the
> ususal arithmetic conversions (6.3.1.8) choose float as the common type:
>
> Otherwise, if the corresponding real type of either operand is float,
> the other operand is converted, without change of type domain, to a
> type whose corresponding real type is float.
OK, thanks. I looked at (out of date) K&R, which told me all floating
point arithmetic in C was done in double precision, and I tried my
program on i386, where it appeared to worked fine.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug?
2002-04-16 20:00 [Linux-ia64] gcc type promotion bug? Richard Hirst
2002-04-16 20:31 ` Andreas Schwab
2002-04-16 20:36 ` Richard Hirst
@ 2002-04-16 20:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2002-04-16 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
Richard Hirst <rhirst@linuxcare.com> writes:
|> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
|> > No. There are no operands of type double or long double involved, so the
|> > ususal arithmetic conversions (6.3.1.8) choose float as the common type:
|> >
|> > Otherwise, if the corresponding real type of either operand is float,
|> > the other operand is converted, without change of type domain, to a
|> > type whose corresponding real type is float.
|>
|> OK, thanks. I looked at (out of date) K&R, which told me all floating
|> point arithmetic in C was done in double precision, and I tried my
|> program on i386, where it appeared to worked fine.
The standard explicitly allows for using a higher precision and range for
floating point computation than those of the nominal type.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread