On 2003-09-12 21:43:57 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > This is not a glibc problem. It's not the call to fprintf which is > faulting. It's the addition of 1.0 to a denormal.
I know, but I thought that either the subnormals should have been treated in software by the libc, or the ldexp function should have avoided returning a subnormal in non-IEEE754 mode (this may make sense, as 1e-1038 seems to be evaluated to 0). > > I completely disagree. I care about the C standard, and I explicitely > > say so with the -std=c99 option. Perhaps things like -std=c99 should > > imply -mieee then, if no change is done in glibc (and __STDC__ > > shouldn't be defined if no such option is used). > > Raise that with the Alpha compiler maintainer, Richard Henderson. So, do you think that this bug should be reassigned to the gcc-3.2 package (since I use gcc 3.2)? -- Vincent Lef�vre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Math�matiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
