PERFORCE change 125866 for review

[Constantine A. Murenin]

http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=125866

Change 125866 by cnst at dale on 2007/08/30 18:34:27

	there appears to be a bug in the compiler that only seems to compile
	this usage of the e notation on i386, but not on amd64.
	
	amd64 users would get an "SSE register return with SSE disabled" gcc 4.2.1 error;
	however, on i386 neither gcc 4.2.0 nor gcc 4.2.1 would return even the slightest sign
	of a warning message regarding the line.
	
	Discussed on freebsd-current@ and a few irc/silc channels a few days ago.
	
	See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-August/076431.html
	
	Some comments from imp@ and des at .
	
	P.S. Yes, I probably should not have used the e notation in the first place,
	however, after doing some tests I originally concluded that it didn't make a
	difference in the code that's generated, but it does improve readability --
	hence the e notation was used. :-)
	
	Compile tested on amd64 by:	h.schmalzbauer at omnisec.de
					syrinx@
	
	Tested on i386 with Core 2 by:	cnst@

Affected files ...

.. //depot/projects/soc2007/cnst-sensors/sys.dev.coretemp/coretemp.c#6 edit

Differences ...

==== //depot/projects/soc2007/cnst-sensors/sys.dev.coretemp/coretemp.c#6 (text+ko) ====

@@ -294,6 +294,6 @@
 		s->value = 0;
 	} else {
 		s->flags &= ~SENSOR_FINVALID;
-		s->value = temp * 1e6 + 273.15e6;
+		s->value = temp * 1000000 + 273150000;
 	}
 }