Andrew Haley [aph@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > What do you think the conversion should do in this case? I find > the current behaviour to be the least surprising. Well, it should at least give consistent values regardless of the level of optimization being used. I'm even having a more complex C++ program that gives different values for each of the optimization levels -O0, -O1 and -O2! I'd be really surprised if this doesn't come to a surprise to anyone ;-). To me (and the colleagues I've talked to), the "most expected" behaviour would be: any flaot equal to or bigger than the biggest integer -> biggest integer any flaot equal to or smaller than the smallest integer -> smallest integer This could even be driven further: INF+ -> biggest integer INF- -> smallest integer and just to have one consistent definition for that: QNAN -> 0 SNAN -> floating point exception But imho, anything, even "undefined (but fixed)", would be better than "varying depending on the level of optimization".
