--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-02 14:32
---
I checked again and the issue certainly doesn't exist anymore in 4_3-branch and
mainline: 9.99989e-321 can be input without underflow to zero and without error
(i.e., cin.good() == 1 after the input).
--
pa
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 21:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
... Again, as I expected, 4.3.0 behaves differently, never sets
> eofbit on underflow.
I meant failbit of course.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34423
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 21:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, thanks for the information. So the mystery
> is then: why is failbit set on that read in 4.2.2
> and not 4.0.1 (and whatever version of libstdc++
> each is linking against). Inserting a litt
--- Comment #3 from conley at astro dot utoronto dot ca 2007-12-10 20:08
---
Subject: Re: Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x corrupts
future reads
Ok, thanks for the information. So the mystery
is then: why is failbit set on that read in 4.2.2
and not 4.0.1 (and
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 19:26 ---
What you call "corruption of future reads" is just failbit set, due to
underflow, evidently. You can simply reset it to goodbit and proceed. That
said, I have no idea why the behavior is different in 4.2.2 vs 4.0.1, since
n
