Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:34:58 GMT From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 125866 for review Message-ID: <200708301834.l7UIYw8e079358@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=125866 Change 125866 by cnst@dale on 2007/08/30 18:34:27 there appears to be a bug in the compiler that only seems to compile this usage of the e notation on i386, but not on amd64. amd64 users would get an "SSE register return with SSE disabled" gcc 4.2.1 error; however, on i386 neither gcc 4.2.0 nor gcc 4.2.1 would return even the slightest sign of a warning message regarding the line. Discussed on freebsd-current@ and a few irc/silc channels a few days ago. See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-August/076431.html Some comments from imp@ and des@. P.S. Yes, I probably should not have used the e notation in the first place, however, after doing some tests I originally concluded that it didn't make a difference in the code that's generated, but it does improve readability -- hence the e notation was used. :-) Compile tested on amd64 by: h.schmalzbauer@omnisec.de syrinx@ Tested on i386 with Core 2 by: cnst@ Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/soc2007/cnst-sensors/sys.dev.coretemp/coretemp.c#6 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/soc2007/cnst-sensors/sys.dev.coretemp/coretemp.c#6 (text+ko) ==== @@ -294,6 +294,6 @@ s->value = 0; } else { s->flags &= ~SENSOR_FINVALID; - s->value = temp * 1e6 + 273.15e6; + s->value = temp * 1000000 + 273150000; } }
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708301834.l7UIYw8e079358>