Boost logo

Boost :

From: Hubert Holin (Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-09 04:01:54

Somewhere in the E.U., le 09/06/2005


In article <989aceac0506070535775585f3_at_[hidden]>,
 Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> These test failures all seem to stem from problems with std::exp (long
> double) and perhaps some other math functions using long double on
> gcc. Does this smell like a gcc bug, or is there something wrong with
> the tests?
> gcc-4_0-darwin:
> gcc-windows:
> gcc-3_4_3-sunos:

      For gcc-4_0-darwin and gcc-3_4_3-sunos at least, I strongly
suspect a libstdc++ bug (or severe QOI issue), w.r.t. "long double" on
64 bits architectures. Jonathan Wakely is investigating that possibility
(I sent him a much shorter test case demonstrating the problem). If
necessary, I will turn off the tests for "long double" before the 1.33

      For gcc-windows things are not as clear, as apparently this is a
32 bits architecture and not a 64 bits one. There is the possibility
that "long double" may actually be (slightly) bigger than "double" on
that platform (I seem to remember things along that line when I worked
on NT a great while back), and that we are falling into the same kind of



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at