X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <440ACF12.7000403@cs.unipr.it> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:44:18 +0100 From: Roberto Bagnara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050929 Thunderbird/1.0.7 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tprince AT computer DOT org CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, "The Parma Polyhedra Library developers' list" Subject: Re: Precision of doubles and stdio References: <4408B886 DOT 5010209 AT cs DOT unipr DOT it> <4408C140 DOT 9030100 AT myrealbox DOT com> In-Reply-To: <4408C140.9030100@myrealbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Tim Prince wrote: > Roberto Bagnara wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> the following little program >> >> #include >> >> 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. Thank you Tim. We were unaware of this giant bug in the C standard. All the best, Roberto -- Prof. Roberto Bagnara Computer Science Group Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/ mailto:bagnara AT cs DOT unipr DOT it -- 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/