Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu,  6 Apr 1995 19:15:44 +0400
From:      "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" <ache@astral.msk.su>
To:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "Nickolay N. Dudorov" <nnd@gw.itfs.nsk.su>
Subject:   Re: PERL4&5 broken in -current and 950322-SNAP!
Message-ID:  <MNWM0XlOpB@astral.msk.su>
In-Reply-To: <199504061324.UAA10720@gw.itfs.nsk.su>; from "Nickolay N. Dudorov" at Thu, 6 Apr 1995 20:24:44 %2B0700
References:  <199504061324.UAA10720@gw.itfs.nsk.su>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199504061324.UAA10720@gw.itfs.nsk.su> Nickolay N. Dudorov
    writes:

>>From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>

>>>    The first loop prints out a "0." instead of a "0".  This anomaly
>>>also caused gcc to fail when compiling the extension modules (because
>>>perl was generating array subscripts with 0. instead of 0).  Anyone
>>>have a gcc 2.6.2/pre-950322 machine to test this?

>>The C printf function used to print "0" in some cases when it should
>>have printed "0.".  Apparently perl's tests expect the broken behaviour.

>	This is very strange but on FreeBSD-1.1.5.1, FreeBSD-2.0-950210-SNAP,
>SunOS 4.1.3 and ISC 3.0 my test program prints:

>1
>0

>and only on FreeBSD-current I see:

>1
>0.

I think, we still have a bug here.
Why 1 instead of 1. ?
And more generic why: I think it should be
1.0
0.0
or return to
1
0
(SunOS and ISC can be treated as some kind of standard behaviour)

>(Test program :

>main()
>{
>char b[256];
>sprintf(b,"%g",1.0);
>printf("%s\n",b);
>sprintf(b,"%g",0.0);
>printf("%s\n",b);
>}

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov        : And I rest so composedly,  /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su       : That any beholder  /Might fancy me dead -
FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3    : Might start at beholding me,  /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team :         E.A.Poe         From "For Annie" 1849



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MNWM0XlOpB>