X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:14:17 -0400 From: "Lev Bishop" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: newlib?: pow function can produce incorrect results. In-Reply-To: <007501c7860c$fc385bf0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <17190 DOT 86623 DOT qm AT web59108 DOT mail DOT re1 DOT yahoo DOT com> <007501c7860c$fc385bf0$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 4/23/07, Dave Korn wrote: > On 24 April 2007 00:53, Cary R. wrote: > > > I had some more time to look into this and when the > > simple C program I mentioned earlier uses variables > > like the other program, incorrect results are > > produced. I have attached this C/C++ program. I > > certainly don't understand what is going on. I would > > have expected pow to be pass-by value which should > > make the two calls identical from a system standpoint, > > but the results imply something different. Any > > suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > > The notorious PR323. Nah, in this case it's just that gcc's __builtin_pow() is more standards-compliant than newlib's pow(). L -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/