Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:32:18 -0400 From: Morten Welinder <mwelinder@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: printf issues I am seeing differences in how printf("%.200Lg",val) works between musl code and glibc. Here are some samples. The top line is how musl prints, the bottom is glibc. -65878995336522048.000000000 -65878995336522048 1954675876964773.500000000 1954675876964773.5 3953605802361882.000000000 3953605802361882 Unrelatedly, from function fmt_fp: #define CONCAT2(x,y) x ## y #define CONCAT(x,y) CONCAT2(x,y) [...] long double round = CONCAT(0x1p,LDBL_MANT_DIG); That code is cute as a Hello Kitty door knocker, but really? Let's hope nobody gets the urge to define LDBL_MANT_DIG as 0100 or (80-16) or some such. The first case will still compile, but get the wrong result. Morten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.