luehrs@sokrates.informatik.uni-Bremen.de (Carsten Luehrs) writes:
> JdeBP@jba.co.uk (Jonathan de Boyne Pollard) writes:
>|> Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@rahul.net) wrote:
>|> : double d = 0.9;
>|> : int main ()
>|> : { double d = 0.8;
>|> :   { extern double d;
>|> :     printf ("%f\n", d);
>|> :   }
>|> : }
>|> : This program *should* print 0.900000, and with most compilers, it does.
>|> So just for the record, some more interesting results.
>|> Borland C++ 2.0 for OS/2         : 0.900000
>|> IBM VisualAge C++ 3.00 for OS/2  : 0.900000
>|> MetaWare High C++ 3.31a for OS/2 : 0.900000
>|> Watcom C++ 10.0b on OS/2         : 0.800000
>|> EMX C++ 0.9a on OS/2             : 0.900000
>Even better gcc 2.6.3 on Solaris 2.3 give 0.8 - g++ 2.6.3 gives 0.9 :-)

Wait just a sec.... isn't this one of those things
that changed with the new C++ naming standards?

My guess (and I may be wrong - you have to
check with someone more guruish than I am)
is that in C this should be 0.800000 and in
C++ 0.900000

It may also be that the behavior for this
construct is not defined in ANSI C but, as
we all know with the new C++ naming rules in
C++ it is clearly defined that 0.900000 should
be output.  If the behavior is not defined in
C then all C compilers will be correct! :)

If I am right than gcc and g++ work just fine,
but someone should file a bug report to Watcom.

Hogan

PS - Is guruish a word?  If not it should be. ;)