ag0aep6g wrote:

> On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> ----
>> double f() { return 1; }
>> void main()
>> {
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>     double b = 2;
>>      assert(b == 2); /* fails; should pass */
>> }
>> ----
>
> With `real` instead of `double` x86_64 is also affected.

yeah. that is 'cause SSE cannot do math with 80-bit floats, and compiler falls back to FPU in this case.

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> ----
>> double f() { return 1; }
>> 
>> void main()
>> {
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>>      cast(void) f();
>> 
>>      double b = 2;
>>      assert(b == 2); /* fails; should pass */
>> }
>> ----
>
> With `real` instead of `double` x86_64 is also affected.

Wow. Good to know I'm not crazy. I was afk for a bit, sorry. I guess I'm glad I found it and posted. The conversation has gone beyond my realm of understanding. Has anyone tested on 2.079 like Ali wanted. I have not had a chance to install. I was going to wait to post the bug till that was tried.

Matt Gamble wrote:

> On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>>> ----
>>> double f() { return 1; }
>>> void main()
>>> {
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>      cast(void) f();
>>>     double b = 2;
>>>      assert(b == 2); /* fails; should pass */
>>> }
>>> ----
>>
>> With `real` instead of `double` x86_64 is also affected.
>
> Wow. Good to know I'm not crazy. I was afk for a bit, sorry. I guess I'm glad I found it and posted. The conversation has gone beyond my realm of understanding. Has anyone tested on 2.079 like Ali wanted. I have not had a chance to install. I was going to wait to post the bug till that was tried.

sure, it is still there in git HEAD. it is not the bug that can be fixed "accidentally". %-)

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:39:58 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> Matt Gamble wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> With `real` instead of `double` x86_64 is also affected.
>>
>> Wow. Good to know I'm not crazy. I was afk for a bit, sorry. I guess I'm glad I found it and posted. The conversation has gone beyond my realm of understanding. Has anyone tested on 2.079 like Ali wanted. I have not had a chance to install. I was going to wait to post the bug till that was tried.
>
> sure, it is still there in git HEAD. it is not the bug that can be fixed "accidentally". %-)

Ok, this has been submitted as a bug. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18573
Thanks for the quick responses. Don't know what I'd do with out the community.

Matt Gamble wrote:

> Ok, this has been submitted as a bug. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18573

thank you.