[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OT] Is od broken?
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [OT] Is od broken? |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes:
> $ src/od -An -N48 configure -tfL
> 0.000000000000000000e+9999
> 0.000000000000000000e+9999
> 0.000000000000000000e+9999
> 0.000000000000000000e+9999
>
> I'm not sure why cygwin is printing such a weird value for (invalid) long
> doubles, but this patch didn't change the situation. It seems like a NaN
might
> be better than 0.0...e+9999 if the random 12-byte sequence can't be converted
> to a valid 10-byte register long double on x86. Perhaps this is a bug in
> gnulib's printf replacement?
This particular bug is in cygwin's libc. Coreutils isn't using the gnulib
printf-posix module, and therefore this is calling the native printf (which on
cygwin is broken on long double) rather than the gnulib replacement. Would it
be worth updating bootstrap.conf to pull in the printf-posix module? Or, since
that would potentially bloat all of the coreutils binaries that use printf but
not floating point by pulling in a replacement printf, would it be worth
refactoring od.c to use xprintf or vasprintf (both of which already use the
gnulib replacement) rather than printf?
--
Eric Blake
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Eric Blake, 2008/06/11
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Eric Blake, 2008/06/11
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Jim Meyering, 2008/06/11
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Paul Eggert, 2008/06/11
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Eric Blake, 2008/06/11
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Eric Blake, 2008/06/12
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Jim Meyering, 2008/06/12
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Eric Blake, 2008/06/12
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Bo Borgerson, 2008/06/12
- Re: [OT] Is od broken?, Jim Meyering, 2008/06/13