X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-ORBL: [63.192.140.4]
Message-ID: <4408C140.9030100@myrealbox.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:20:48 -0800
From: Tim Prince <tprince AT myrealbox DOT com>
Reply-To: tprince AT computer DOT org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050921
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roberto Bagnara <bagnara AT cs DOT unipr DOT it>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com,
   "The Parma Polyhedra Library developers' list" <ppl-devel AT cs DOT unipr DOT it>
Subject: Re: Precision of doubles and stdio
References: <4408B886 DOT 5010209 AT cs DOT unipr DOT it>
In-Reply-To: <4408B886.5010209@cs.unipr.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> the following little program
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main() {
>   double d;
>   scanf("%lf", &d);
>   printf("%.1000g\n", d);
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> does this on Linux/i686
> 
> $ gcc -W -Wall in.c
> $ a.out
> 70.9
> 70.900000000000005684341886080801486968994140625
> 
> and does the following under Cygwin on the same machine:
> 
> roberto AT quark /tmp
> $ gcc -W -Wall in.c
> 
> roberto AT quark /tmp
> $ ./a.exe
> 70.9
> 70.90000000000000568434188608080148696899414
> 
> Why?  Is there a way to reconcile the two behaviors?
> Notice that I know about the x87 and its vaguaries:
> nonetheless I wonder why such a scanf immediately
> followed by a printf shows a difference between
> Cygwin and Linux.
If you haven't gone out of your way to install similar printf() support 
libraries on cygwin and linux, they will definitely not be the same.  My 
past reading of various relevant documents convinced me that digits 
beyond the 17th in formatting of doubles are not required by any 
standard to be consistent between implementations.  They have no useful 
function, as 17 digits are sufficient to determine uniquely the 
corresponding binary value in IEEE 754 format.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/