my assumption where based on a _correct_ implementation of sc_trunc. i prefer to have a consistent behavior based on the same implementation, rather than having two different implementations, that behave the same because of a floating point rounding issue.Makes sense. So it actually is the implementation that is changed and not the (normal) behavior. This should pose no problem - is there a specific case where the behavior is different?
i haven't done a good analysis of this issue, so i don't want to comment, in which cases the buggy implementation of the wrong algorithm results in the correct result 8)
cheers, tim -- tim@xxxxxxxxxx http://tim.klingt.org Bill Gates left his university to start Micro$oft. Steve Jobs sold his Wolkswagen bus to start Apple. Linus Torvalds made a new thread in a forum and put a file on a ftp server. _______________________________________________ sc-dev mailing list info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/ search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/