In article <3s76og$m3u@panix2.panix.com>, John Reinitz (reinitz@panix.com) wrote:
> In article <3s4hpr$aq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
> John E. Davis <davis@space.mit.edu> wrote:
> >In article <3s463c$bck@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger) wrote:
> > : I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
> > : of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)
> >
> >It also works fine with GCC 2.4.5 under SunOS 4.1.3.  It will not even
> >compile with `cc' but it compiles with `acc'.

> Curiouser & curioser. gcc 2.4.5 on HP-UX 9.05 gives 0.9, while
> the ANSI hp compiler gives 0.8.

Not on my machine.  Both CC and cc -Aa give 0.9.

> John Reinitz




--
lee

In article <3sca9d$76n@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
Lee Sailer <sailer@a4430edc.esr.hp.com> wrote:
>In article <3s76og$m3u@panix2.panix.com>, John Reinitz (reinitz@panix.com) wrote:
>> Curiouser & curioser. gcc 2.4.5 on HP-UX 9.05 gives 0.9, while
>> the ANSI hp compiler gives 0.8.
>
>Not on my machine.  Both CC and cc -Aa give 0.9.
>

Oops!!! Sorry to be sloppy. Here is an accurate report:
The pgm is rmme.c

kruppel {44} cc -Aa rmme.c
kruppel {45} a.out
0.900000
kruppel {46} gcc rmme.c
kruppel {47} a.out
0.900000
kruppel {48} cc rmme.c
kruppel {49} a.out
0.800000
kruppel {50} what /bin/cc
/bin/cc:
        HP92453-01 A.09.69 HP C Compiler
kruppel {51} gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/hppa1.1-hp-hpux/2.4.5/specs
gcc version 2.4.5

>--
>lee
>

John

In article <3s4hpr$aq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> davis@space.mit.edu writes:
> : I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....
>It also works fine with GCC 2.4.5 under SunOS 4.1.3.

2.4.5 (correctly) prints a warning about the inner "d" being unused.

A version it *doesn't* work with is gcc 2.6.0.

I'd be interested to know how this bug was introduced.

-- Richard
--
This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.

In article <3s2las$1br@hustle.rahul.net>,
Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@rahul.net> wrote:
[remove incorrect arguments]
>
>This program *should* print 0.900000, and with most compilers, it does.
>But when compiled with one particular popular free C compiler, this
>program will print 0.800000.  Obviously this divergence is orders of
>magnitude more serious than the inaccuracy with the Pentium ever was.
>I thus anticipate the outcry over this problem to be orders of magnitude
>more shrill than was the outcry over the Pentium flaw (and I will of
>course be deeply disappointed if such an outrcy doesn't materalize :-).

I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)
--
Andreas Dilger    University of Calgary   \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and
(403) 220-8792    Micronet Research Group  \  a pound of antipasto, would they
Dept of Electrical & Computer Engineering   \    cancel out, leaving him still
<http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/>        hungry?" -- Dogbert

In article <3s463c$bck@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger) wrote:
 : I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
 : of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)

It also works fine with GCC 2.4.5 under SunOS 4.1.3.  It will not even
compile with `cc' but it compiles with `acc'.

--John

John E. Davis (davis@space.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <3s463c$bck@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger) wrote:
:  : I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
:  : of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)

: It also works fine with GCC 2.4.5 under SunOS 4.1.3.  It will not even
: compile with `cc' but it compiles with `acc'.

Also, fine with g++ 2.6.0 under Solaris.

Tom Payne

In article <3s4hpr$aq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
John E. Davis <davis@space.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <3s463c$bck@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger) wrote:
> : I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
> : of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)
>
>It also works fine with GCC 2.4.5 under SunOS 4.1.3.  It will not even
>compile with `cc' but it compiles with `acc'.

Curiouser & curioser. gcc 2.4.5 on HP-UX 9.05 gives 0.9, while
the ANSI hp compiler gives 0.8.

John Reinitz

>I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
>of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)

It works fine with GCC on a NeXTStation ('040 33 Mhz) with warnings.
It fails to work properly on cc (c89) HPUX.

I guess sometimes free is better than commercial (without price consideration)

--
    -INK <kellcrai@isuux.isu.edu>
         Idaho State University

It works with GCC 2.5.8 but fails with GCC 2.6.3

Bill Thomson (wthomson) wrote:
: It works with GCC 2.5.8 but fails with GCC 2.6.3

Another vote for GCC 2.5.8 producing 0.900000. (On Linux.)

However, gcc 2.6.0 on Hp/UX gave me 0.800000 while the c89 compiler
provided with HP/UX produced 0.900000.

Of course, before we can compare this to the Pentium bug doesn't
the FSF have to tell us that we don't need a working namespace?

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
| Eric Goebelbecker          | "To use a finger as a metaphor for |
| Reuters America, Inc.      |   the nonfingerness of a finger    |
| 40 E 52nd St, 13th Flr     |      is not as good as using       |
| New York, NY. 10022        |  nonfingerness as a metaphor for   |
| mail: eric@nymt.reuter.com |   the nonfingerness of a finger"   |
| phone: 212-593-5670        |         - Chuang Tzu               |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

adilger@enel.ucalgary.ca (Andreas Dilger) writes:

>In article <3s2las$1br@hustle.rahul.net>,
>Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@rahul.net> wrote:
>[remove incorrect arguments]
>>
>>This program *should* print 0.900000, and with most compilers, it does.
>>But when compiled with one particular popular free C compiler, this
>>program will print 0.800000.  Obviously this divergence is orders of
>>magnitude more serious than the inaccuracy with the Pentium ever was.
>>I thus anticipate the outcry over this problem to be orders of magnitude
>>more shrill than was the outcry over the Pentium flaw (and I will of
>>course be deeply disappointed if such an outrcy doesn't materalize :-).

>I'm using GCC 2.5.8 on SunOS 4.1.3, and it prints 0.900000....  (Unless,
>of course you mean ANOTHER free compiler? :-)

  Well, gcc 2.6.3 on Ultrix says 0.8... So does same version on OSF/1 and same
version on linux. :-) Havent tested any others..

Russell
--
    Russell Edwards  --  voodoo@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au  --  IRC: VoodChile
 Student of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
 -\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-
                         Woohoo!! I mean 'DOH!'