Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-08 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Fri, 2007-06-08 11:54:17 +0100, James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/8/07, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hexdump (&my_long_double, sizeof my_long_double()); > > kill (getpid (), SIGABRT); > > or just call abort() which is desi

Re: arch-independent glibc printf segfault for "special" long double values

2007-06-08 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
d, you may get two different results on two different architectures because of architecture-dependant data parsing? MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: 23:53 <@jbglaw> So, ich kletter' jetzt mal ins Bett. the second : 23:57 &l

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-08 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
erformance is not > such an issue. But I'm sure there are valid use cases where ultimate > performance is really vital. Use-cases vary a lot. You can fully control your cluster, but in the case discussed here, the data was injected by a non-controlled source. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: ...und wenn Du denkst, es geht nicht mehr, the second : kommt irgendwo ein Lichtlein her. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-08 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
t;robustness" like "not crashing loudly when used out-of-specs"? I'd rather like to fix the bugs... MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: Alles sollte so einfach wie möglich gemacht sein. the second :

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
itectures for sure. Once you've learned that exchanging data is error-prone, you think twice for every bit exchanged :) Don't rely on data you cannot *fully* trust. In all other cases, pretend that it's evil data and handle it like that. Even more important, I think this "bug&qu

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2007-06-07 13:55:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 13:27:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > read what i said again ... the clients a

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2007-06-07 13:57:17 -0400, Tor Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > >There's a difference in > > > > void send_float (float foo, int fd) { > > write (fd, &foo, sizeof (float)); > &

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2007-06-07 13:27:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 12:06:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 07 June 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2007-06-07 12:06:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 22:44:17 +0100, James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I read a stream of data (from a file, a networ

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

2007-06-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
n hex. "Assuming" that this'll make up any well-known data formats is just asking for trouble. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html the second : signature.asc Description: Digital signature