Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: RoS <Ros@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:21:58 +0100
In data Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:06:43 +0100, jacob navia scrisse:
RoS wrote:
In data Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:01:52 +0100, jacob navia scrisse:
Jack Klein wrote:
I'm not a die hard Microsoft basher, but this was certainly an example
of extreme stupidity on their part. They decided that their goal of
world domination was more important than the need of the programmer to
decide when a program needed the maximum precision that the hardware
could provide.
Microsoft is perfectly right to do that since the C standard EXPLICITELY
allows setting long double to double. The error is with gcc/mingw, not
with Microsoft. Mingw uses the run time of Microsoft without adapting
the compiler to the run time library and this is surely not Microsoft's
fault!
If you compile your program with Microsoft it will work correctly since
the compiler generates the right call!
wrong
there are numbers that are rappresentable with 80bit float
and not rappresentable with 64bit float
Yes, but as I said above, Microsoft never uses 80 bits
Please read the message before sending this "wrong" stuff!
excuse me i have read wrong
but LDBL_MAX etc will be different
.if i remember well, if a 64bit float try to rappresent a
80bit float should generate in that conversion an exception
in a x86 cpu (but printf can handle this case returning error)
The CPU is in 64 Bit (double precision), not in 80 bits precision
This setting is used by Microsoft.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- References:
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: Jack Klein
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: jacob navia
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: RoS
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- From: jacob navia
- Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- Prev by Date: a silent error
- Next by Date: Re: a silent error
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- Next by thread: Re: LDBL_MAX -1.#QNAN0e+000 with MinGW?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|