Jim Meyering wrote:
> perhaps some glibc-post-2.6 release would be a more reasonable target.
Since the mentioned printf crash is not recognized as a bug by the glibc
maintainers, I don't have much hope that it will be fixed, ever.
Bruno
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On i386, x86_64, ia64, the 'long double' format has an explicitly represented
> most significant mantissa bit. This has the consequence that some bit patterns
> in a 'long double' are not covered by IEEE 754. *printf better prints these
> numbers as NaN (ra
