Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:53:58 +1000 From: "Tim J. Robbins" <tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/36783 Message-ID: <20020413135358.A9710@treetop.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20020412.121645.03985114.imp@village.org>; from imp@village.org on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:16:45PM -0600 References: <200204121240.g3CCe3a52899@freefall.freebsd.org> <200204121639.g3CGdOZ90234@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20020412.121645.03985114.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:16:45PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > This is no longer true. Long doubles can and do give better precision > than doubles, but at a high performance cost. printf can't print a > long double more precisely than what double can represent, however, > since printf casts it to a double first. This sounds like something that needs to get documented in printf(3), then eventually fixed (I can't think of an elegant way to fix it right now). What I'll do is leave the format string the same as for a double, and make a note explaining that it was working around a printf limitation. Thanks for the info. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020413135358.A9710>