*sigh*.
talking to you guys is like talking to a wall.
seriously, with your attitude you will render GNU a complete joke in
less than a decade, even moreso than it is already.
unfortunately that will also affect the FSF.
On 06/19/2012 04:37 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 06/18/2012 06:27 PM, John Spencer wrote:
easy: add a check for the invalid LD bit representations
How does one do that, exactly? I thought the
whole point of the proposed exercise was that code must
be portable to any standard C implementation.
So, where's the portable code to do what you're
proposing?
#ifdef SYS_USES_LD80
x = get_valid_ld80_or_zero(x);
#endif
OSLT. why should i care ? go figure it out yourself. it is your (GNU)
freaking octaldump program that is broken (unless it uses a specially
patched libc), not mine.
who uses LD80 values in files anyway ?
Lots of people. A quick Google search found
"I have a binary file of long double values created with fwrite in C"
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2586295/importing-c-written-binary-files-into-matlab>
I'm sure one can find more examples.
wow. in the depths of the internets you found one guy that wants to
write floats into a file. amazing.
and from that you judge that lots of people do.
...
anyway this is irrelevant, it is valid for a program to desire reading
and writing long double values into a value,
and it is valid for a program to desire that invalid bit patterns don't
crash a program.
*it is not valid though to expect that the LIBC will do "The Right
Thing" magically*
if you want this behaviour in a program, code it into the program, for
fucks sake.
neither me nor paul were talking about printf().
No, I was talking about printf.
not it that paragraph.
you're forcing your printf replacement on implementations
There's no force here. The process is entirely voluntary.
ah perfect then, so please educate me where i can find the hidden switch
to tell GNULIB:
"NO I DONT WANT YOUR F****** BROKEN REPLACEMENT FUNCTIONS, THAT EVEN
FAIL TO COMPILE WITH AN #ERROR, BECAUSE ITS AUTHORS ARE MORONS THAT
DISABLED THE EXISTING PORTABLE FALLBACK CODE" ?
or
"YES, I AM FINE WITH A PRINTF THAT BAILS OUT ON INVALID BIT PATTERNS,
BECAUSE THAT'S UB AND HOW C WORKS. DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR SHITTY REPLACEMENT
ON ME" ?
you know, reading 20.000 lines of ugly generated autoconf script code is
pretty though; i can't spot the "voluntary" option myself.
