From 7501694710882021526 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10f5bc,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10f5bc,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 102b75,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1149ec,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid1149ec,public X-Google-Thread: 110292,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid110292,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,6f6e97a6fdbbf44c,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Leonard N. Zubkoff Subject: Re: And you thought that the Pentium bug was bad! (Get a load of this!) Date: 1995/06/18 Message-ID: <3s2q27$94d@kelewan.dandelion.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 104595696 distribution: world sender: lnz@dandelion.com references: <3s2las$1br@hustle.rahul.net> organization: Dandelion Digital newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch,comp.software.testing nntp-posting-user: root In article <3s2las$1br@hustle.rahul.net> "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes: [program deleted] 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 :-). Considering that GCC 2.7.0 was released a couple of days ago and does not suffer from this flaw, I doubt there will be that much outcry. Would that Intel could have corrected my Pentium so quickly... Leonard