arch-independent glibc printf segfault for special long double values

This started with Bruno Haible's bug report: printf crashes on some 'long double' values http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4586 I objected to the closure of that BZ: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/12394 because I don't want to have to use bulky

[PATCH] SEQ BUG

John Cowan wrote: Pádraig Brady scripsit: The issue and work around are documented in the info page, but why don't we do the suggestion automatically in code (using the precision that is automatically worked out already)? That implies using either a fixed-point or a decimal-based

Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG

Pádraig Brady wrote: John Cowan wrote: Pádraig Brady scripsit: The issue and work around are documented in the info page, but why don't we do the suggestion automatically in code (using the precision that is automatically worked out already)? That implies using either a fixed-point or a

Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG

Pádraig Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes you could use gmp, but for normal uses of `seq` you could just use appropriate comparisons? How about the following patch, and we can also remove the workaround info from the docs. Pádraig. --- seq.orig.c 2007-06-08 07:50:24.0 +

Re: arch-independent glibc printf segfault for special long double values

Jim Meyering wrote: Well, at least it is not IA64-specific. To trigger it you need a long double type longer than 8 bytes. More precisely, it occurs for floating-point data formats in which the most significant mantissa bit is not hidden. - It does not occur with IEEE 754 'float', 'double'.

Re: Simplifying command line parsing with Genparse

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:49:53PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Michael Geng wrote: I would expect Genparse to generate faster code than argp because it does part of the work at compile time while argp does everything at run time since it's a library function. Is the performance of parsing

Re: arch-independent glibc printf segfault for special long double values

On Fri, 2007-06-08 10:48:02 +0200, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This started with Bruno Haible's bug report: printf crashes on some 'long double' values http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4586 I objected to the closure of that BZ:

Re: rmdir fails?

Morgan Read scripsit: rmdir --ignore-fail-on-non-empty Never works. [example snipped] On the contrary, it did exactly what you asked. It tried to remove a non-empty directory, failed (as it will on all Posix and Win32 systems), and suppressed the report of the failure. If you want to

Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG

Andreas Schwab wrote: Pádraig Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes you could use gmp, but for normal uses of `seq` you could just use appropriate comparisons? How about the following patch, and we can also remove the workaround info from the docs. Pádraig. --- seq.orig.c 2007-06-08

Re: recover the contents of a file

Viviana Piccolo scripsit: Hi, I would like to recover the content of some files I've removed with rm. Probably too late by now. You have to act before any more files are created or written to, in general. -- Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan is a tax on

recover the contents of a file

Hi, I would like to recover the content of some files I've removed with rm. Thanks a lot Viviana ___ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils

Re: Simplifying command line parsing with Genparse

Michael Geng wrote: I could imagine that especially for the Coreutils speed might be more a concern than for other tools because some of the Coreutils tools are called very often. I would expect that the time loading the executable would swamp any possible option processing. This is really

Re: recover the contents of a file

Viviana Piccolo wrote: I would like to recover the content of some files I've removed with rm. Here is the FAQ entry for your question: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#I-used-rm-to-remove-a-file_002e-How-can-I-get-it-back-now_003f Bob

Re: arch-independent glibc printf segfault for special long double values

On Fri, 2007-06-08 11:58:10 -0700, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would even mean that feeding the same bytes into GNU od, you may get two different results on two different architectures because of architecture-dependant data parsing?

Re: arch-independent glibc printf segfault for special long double values

Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would even mean that feeding the same bytes into GNU od, you may get two different results on two different architectures because of architecture-dependant data parsing? Yes, that has always been true.