X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A9EA46A.2040509@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:59:22 +0100 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: std::arg() bug : not repetitive ? References: <264058 DOT 8230 DOT qm AT web25502 DOT mail DOT ukl DOT yahoo DOT com> <4A9D6E81 DOT 3070904 AT gmail DOT com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Eric Backus wrote: > I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'll go out on a limb and say that the > original behavior does NOT seem like a defect to me. My reasoning: You're not on a limb, plenty of people agree with you. Read the comment trail on PR323 to hear all the arguments hashed out in endless depth: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323 In any event, the way it's being resolved is to give everybody what they want by providing the new -fexcess-precision= switch and let the user choose on a case-by-case basis, which seems nice to me. cheers, DaveK -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple