On 27/11/2017 20:27, Robert Elz wrote:
| > I still don't believe that the way it works is the way it should,
| > but that's a topic for another day.
|
| Are you talking about the functional change or the code itself?
Perhaps both. There are 3 changes I would suggest to what is
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 05:32:45AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:44:38 +0100
> From:Joerg Sonnenberger
> Message-ID: <20171127174438.ga20...@britannica.bec.de>
>
> | Parsing a string constant is a well-defined
> | operation
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 05:32:45 +0700
> From: Robert Elz
>
> Way back when I first learned floating point programming (something I
> have done astonishingly little of in the intervening decades) I was
> told it was *always* wrong to compare floats for exact equality - but
>
Date:Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:34:19 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20171128143418.ga8...@britannica.bec.de>
| Hidding things until then doesn't actually fix something.
No, it doesn't, but when I made the change I wasn't hiding anything,
just
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:41:58 +0700
> From: Robert Elz
>
> OK, got my i386 test setup (a Xen DomU) built & running, the updated
> test failed (as it always failed on i386 before I added the epsilon
> test, which is #if 0'd out now) the results are ...
>
> strto:
Date:Wed, 29 Nov 2017 06:12:02 +
From:Taylor R Campbell
Message-ID: <20171129061642.e8dcb60...@jupiter.mumble.net>
| That's pretty interesting!
That is what I thought, it was certainly not what I expected.
| Can
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 05:37:56 +0700
> From: Robert Elz
>
> I think that conclusion had been reached already (not by me...) but that's
> "Under IEEE 754-2008" right? What about architectures that don't use IEEE
> floats? This test should not be assuming that - we still