From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2006-02-24 10:44:17
|
David wrote, quoting me: >> Read and respond to this message at: >> https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3590815 >> By: keithmarshall >> >> And to add insult to injury, it's even more comprehensively broken, >> when compiled *natively* with gcc-2.96, on my Mandrake Linux 8.2 >> box :( > > The same with gcc-3.3.5 on Debian, so it's still broken, so to > speak, up to at least that version. The program _does_ work > correctly if you compile with the '-std=c99' option. I have > gcc-2.95 installed, also, and that option is not available for > that version. Hmm. Yes, that option *is* available in Mandrake's gcc-2.96, and it does fix the problem there too :) > I'm not all that proficient with gcc, but the fact that this option > was necessary was not immediately intuitive to me from reading the > round() manpage. The manpage I have *does* note C99 conformance, but that isn't sufficient, IMO -- it should also have a `Caveats and Bugs' section, in which it *explicitly* specifies the requirement to compile with the `-std=c99' option, (or some other standard conformant option). In this respect, this is a bad manpage. The *implementation* is also bad, for without an appropriate `-std' option, the application will still compile and link without a murmur, only to fail miserably, and *incomrehensibly*, at run time. But this isn't the right place to complain of this. Is it a GCC issue? Or should it be reported somewhere else? I simply don't know where to go with the bug report :( (And that's another omission from the manpage). Regards, Keith. |