This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 24 April 2007 00:53, Cary R. wrote:
> I had some more time to look into this and when the > simple C program I mentioned earlier uses variables > like the other program, incorrect results are > produced. I have attached this C/C++ program. I > certainly don't understand what is going on. I would > have expected pow to be pass-by value which should > make the two calls identical from a system standpoint, > but the results imply something different. Any > suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
The notorious PR323.
Nah, in this case it's just that gcc's __builtin_pow() is more standards-compliant than newlib's pow().
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |