> Are you sure you are right to blame the compiler? I should think this
> would be a C library issue, not the compiler's fault...
Well, I've *got* to blame something! ;)
In my limited testing, the only variable was the compiler. I did not
change the C library. So, one can point fingers at the compiler for not
behaving the same as the old compiler, or one can surmise that there is
a deeper story of older C library misbehavior which was covered up by
the older compiler in a great conspiracy. I leaned toward blaming the
compiler, on the assumption that for most simple math compilers probably
generate inline code rather than going to a library. It may be that for
any compiler at high optimization levels you tend to see rounding
problems since they don't bother cleaning up results.
Don't know what the real story is, just that the ".9999" behavior
reminds me of my Unix boxes from a dozen years ago, not my recent ones.
So, has anyone tried a new egcs with a new glibc2? I figured that since
Oleg is a bleeding-edge kind of guy (new egcs, Linux kernel 2.1.1xx,
etc.) he probably has that new combination.
- Tom
