------- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-08-17 10:37 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] spurious exceptions with -ffloat-store
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > For one, I don't think " __real__ X = R; __imag__ X = C; " is really nice > looking. Now if the person did: > *(double*) &X = R; ((double*) & X)[1] = C; > > it might be a different story but then again X is still defined piece wise so > you will still get NaN. I think setting parts is cleaner than using casts like that, and safer (because of not involving arithmetic that GCC's liable to get wrong in cases involving -0) than R + C * I. > I really don't think this is a bug as we have an uninitialized variables here > in the same way doing: > short a; > a = b&0xff|a; > a = (b<<8)&0xFF00|a; > > Would be defined code. I think setting the parts is valid GNU C (ISO C doesn't have the __real__ and __imag__ operators), and should be considered much like initializing a struct by parts, where it would definitely be incorrect to generate an exception from an uninitialized part. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33088
