[ Updated patch at the end, Alexandre. ]
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Alex Villacís Lasso wrote:
Sorry to object, but which version of exactly which compiler optimizes
away the negative sign?
You're right, I misread this, sorry. My original patch wasn't wrong,
but the explanation was, and there
Gerald Pfeifer escribió:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
dlls/oleaut32/tests/vartype.c has the following snippet of code:
+ f = -1e-400;/* deliberately cause underflow */
+ hres = pVarBstrFromR4(f, lcid, 0, bstr);
+ ok(hres == S_OK, got hres 0x%08lx\n, hres);
+
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
dlls/oleaut32/tests/vartype.c has the following snippet of code:
+ f = -1e-400;/* deliberately cause underflow */
+ hres = pVarBstrFromR4(f, lcid, 0, bstr);
+ ok(hres == S_OK, got hres 0x%08lx\n, hres);
+ if (bstr)
+ {
+
dlls/oleaut32/tests/vartype.c has the following snippet of code:
+ f = -1e-400;/* deliberately cause underflow */
+ hres = pVarBstrFromR4(f, lcid, 0, bstr);
+ ok(hres == S_OK, got hres 0x%08lx\n, hres);
+ if (bstr)
+ {
+todo_wine ok(memcmp(bstr, szZero, sizeof(szZero)) ==
