Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:31:09 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <7704-Sat30Jun2001163109+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <3b3d95b2.362800381@news.primus.ca> (invalid@erehwon.invalid) Subject: Re: DJGPP reserves wrong int size References: <9dde68b7 DOT 0106241053 DOT 2a385311 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <200106242138 DOT RAA18013 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3b37e92e DOT 288745911 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <200106260242 DOT WAA00615 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3b3b4e40 DOT 213415946 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> <6480-Fri29Jun2001102012+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3b3d95b2 DOT 362800381 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> Note-from-DJ: This may be spam Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty) > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:06:13 GMT > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:20:12 +0300, "Eli Zaretskii" > sat on a tribble, which squeaked: > > >This is usually a sign of a numeric bug in the code. > > No kidding, but in this case it went away when I switched to plain > doubles universally. Yes, I understand. And that precisely is the sign of a numerical bug, in most cases I've seen. > Hey, wait a damn minute, the info file said %f for doubles *and* long > doubles. No, it says doubles *or* long doubles. > In any case, the core question remains unanswered: why was some code > that didn't even use printf broken with long doubles but working with > plain doubles? All it did was add, multiply, compare, and assign them > with literals and variables. Not so much as a pointer or a conversion > involved, and I don't think it even did any division... Numerical computations are tricky.