strictfp part of spec?

[Advay Mengle]

Is adding the "strictfp" modifier to a class a modification to the class's spec?

I ask because we are told to add strictfp to any class that may perform floating point arithmetic, but that includes some of the "fully specified" classes in PS2 (like GeoSegment or WalkingRouteFormatter) whose specs we are told to leave unchanged.

Also, I assume we are not allowed to add strictfp to the classes provided in PS6 (Address, InvalidDatabaseException, InvalidAddressException, and NoPathException classes and the Directions interface) since those are not to be modified at all?  (Those shouldn't really need strictfp anyway).

[Michael Ernst]

Because our tests are, for the most part, designed to allow approximate answers, we believe that adding the strictfp modifier to the classes will not affect your results.  However, we have not tested this for all cases.

You may add this modifier, but do avoid it wherever it isn't strictly necessary.

[Advay Mengle]

Now I'm confused - in order to pass the staff provided tests, are we better off with "strictfp" or without it?

And what if some students' tests use strictfp, while others don't?

Thanks

[Advay Mengle]

Sorry for double posting, but this is kind of important.

Should we or should we not use "strictfp" in order to pass the staff tests?

[Michael Ernst]

The problem set clearly states that you should use strictfp:  http://web.mit.edu/6.170/www/psets/ps6/ps6.html#Miscellaneous

We have designed our tests in such a way that we hope this is not necessary -- in other words, we are making an effort not to penalize those who forget to use strictfp.  However, we cannot guarantee this, so we recommend the use of strictfp.