On 4/8/2013 7:46 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
On 04/08/2013 06:45 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2013 6:34 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote:
That may be so in C, in Ada it would be perfectly reasonable to use
infinite precision for intermediate results in some cases, since the
language standard specifically encourages this approach.
gcc lacks an infinite precision plus operator?! :-)
Right, that's why we do everything in the front end in the
case of Ada. But it would be perfectly reasonable for the
back end to do this substitution.
but there is no way in the current tree language to convey which ones
you can and which ones you cannot.
Well the back end has all the information to figure this out I think!
But anyway, for Ada, the current situation is just fine, and has
the advantage that the -gnatG expanded code listing clearly shows in
Ada source form, what is going on.
