Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: Tim Prince <timothyprince@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:10:17 -0800
guiguan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have tried to run this with both eclipse(CDT)+MinGW and Cygwin+GCCIf you run this on a compiler which doesn't support long double in
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <float.h>
int main()
{
puts("The range of ");
printf("\tlong double is [%Le, %Le]?[%Le, %Le]\n", -LDBL_MAX, -
LDBL_MIN, LDBL_MIN, LDBL_MAX);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
but got different results:
* In eclipse(CDT)+MinGW
The range of
long double is [-1.#QNAN0e+000, 3.237810e-319]?[6.953674e-310,
0.000000e+000]
* In Cygwin+GCC
The range of
long double is [-1.189731e+4932,
-3.362103e-4932]?[3.362103e-4932, 1.189731e+4932]
This is weird, and I googled it, then just found this
http://www.thescripts.com/forum/thread498535.html
The LDBL_MAX of long double is machine-dependent, but why it like this
in same machine? I guess it?s the problem with MinGW. Anyone hv any
idea?
printf(), results such as these are to be expected.
.
- References:
- LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: guiguan
- LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- Prev by Date: Re: library function vs system calls
- Next by Date: Re: about string and character
- Previous by thread: Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- Next by thread: rpcgen cannot find any C Preprocessor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
