From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 05:46:55 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A327C56 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EB9D52 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id IAA18820; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:46:44 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1XVwSS-0005hA-5c; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:46:44 +0300 Message-ID: <541FB79F.1070002@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:46:07 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rui Paulo , Steve Kargl Subject: Re: Is this a compiler bug? References: <20140922011946.GA4317@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <670269FD-F75F-4044-8F3C-0260F58A70E2@me.com> <20140922014853.GA4469@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <2EB3354D-0F65-4A79-A378-7F397911284A@me.com> In-Reply-To: <2EB3354D-0F65-4A79-A378-7F397911284A@me.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:46:55 -0000 On 22/09/2014 05:20, Rui Paulo wrote: > On Sep 21, 2014, at 18:48, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:38:48PM -0700, Rui Paulo wrote: >>> On Sep 21, 2014, at 18:19, Steve Kargl wrote: >>>> >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> >>>> int >>>> main(void) >>>> { >>>> uint16_t i; >>>> i = 0x3ff0+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff1+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff2+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff3+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff6+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff7+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff8+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ff9+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ffa+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ffb+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ffc+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ffd+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3ffe+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> i = 0x3fff+63; printf("%x\n", i); >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>> >>> Looks like it. Please file a bug report with LLVM. >>> >> >> Unfortunately, llvm requires an account to report bugs. > > I think I know what's happening: "e" is being parsed as scientific notation. Interesting! One of the cases where the whitespace matters? -- Andriy Gapon