David,

David Chase wrote:
> 
> At 04:31 PM 8/4/00 +0200, Stephan Rudlof wrote:
> >the result strongly differs! (the optimized version gives the *wrong*
> >result)
> 
> And those results were? :-)

Before 'bugfix':
	1.000000e+20
and
	-7.469219e-01;
after bugfix by using compile flag -D__NO_MATH_INLINES
in both cases
	-7.469219e-01
.
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)

Interesting, isn't it?

> I got identical behavior, in both cases printing:
> sin(arg1): -6.452513e-01
> 
> Gcc version:
> gcc version egcs-2.91.57 19980901 (egcs-1.1 release)

Which machine/CPU?

> Checking against two Java implementations:
> -0.6452512852657808442058
> (they both agreed, and if rounded to 7 decimal
> digits, they agree with the C program)
> 
> Checking against contructive reals calculator:
> -0.6452512852657808442058117113125230074069...
> (agrees with Java, if rounded)

To illuminate this point:
- Does Java use a C lib to implement double arithmetics?
- What kind of calculator have you used: A calculator emulated by your
computer or a separate one (e.g. a Casio)?

<snipped>

Greetings,

Stephan

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3