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>