Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ (and some C) quiz questions
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 06:01:05 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <867d6j2dwu.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <t5tc3s$164p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5u3kb$h0k$1@dont-email.me> <t5u6es$a95$1@dont-email.me> <t5u6uh$e6l$1@dont-email.me> <t5v928$1h9n$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87czgcqxgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86o7zw2x55.fsf@linuxsc.com> <t61tbu$1dmq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="949c0842145859edcf085e16a5bb4ce2"; logging-data="24768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Gi0TH8EElg9+4kna/ZHOY+Gac0AtjPnI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jt/oV9CMCujDvMRi9WIVbfnu5V8= sha1:k/ezznOmQW75afrImWcDEMGSMco=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:84166

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> But that doesn't change the problem of potential loss of
>> precision, because the representation (and hence the particular
>> value) of the constant 0.1 is chosen before that value is
>> converted to long double.  The constant 0.1, being of type
>> double, doesn't have to have less precision than 0.1L, but
>> certainly it can.
>
> AFAIK no C/C++ compiler will second-guess the programmer and
> assume that the literal was meant to be a long double literal.  If
> you specify a literal of type double, the compiler will assume you
> meant it [...]

My statement is not about what compilers do but only about what
the respective standards allow.