> gcc -fno-builtin ./pow-error.c Yes -fno-builtin certainly makes the results consistent, but I would consider this result slightly less correct.
> Unless the function call is optimized away. Hmm, I guess I didn't think something as complicated as pow would get optimized away. Thanks for the insight! I also need to remember to look at the assembly code. > Are you only seeking insight, or is there a > particular problem you want to solve? Mostly insight. These are certainly extreme limits and if they are wrong it's not a problem for what I'm working on. The reason I even found them is that I try to test my code at all the weird limits to make sure things break gracefully and as expected. In this case I got inconstant results that didn't match my expectations. It would be nice if this could be made more compliant, but I also realize that it's not anyones job to do that. Thanks for the replies, Cary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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/
