Quoting Jeff Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > You change to mprec.h broke dtoa.c compilation for sh2e:
> >
>
> Please try the attached patch and let me know if it sovles the problem.
Yes, it allows dtoa.c to compile. However, the build now fails a bit
later on strtod:
/
Joern Rennecke wrote:
You change to mprec.h broke dtoa.c compilation for sh2e:
Please try the attached patch and let me know if it sovles the problem.
-- Jeff J.
Index: libc/stdlib/mprec.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/newlib/libc/s
On Jun 22 14:04, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> I have integrated a newer version of strtod from David M. Gay's gdtoa
> FreeBSD code. This code has the C99 support in question including nan
> and inf support. I have tested on x86-linux and mn10300.
>
> As usual, please run it through its paces on Cygw
You change to mprec.h broke dtoa.c compilation for sh2e:
tmp2
Description: Binary data
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin
I have integrated a newer version of strtod from David M. Gay's gdtoa
FreeBSD code. This code has the C99 support in question including nan
and inf support. I have tested on x86-linux and mn10300.
As usual, please run it through its paces on Cygwin and let me know if
there are any problems.
This is a C99 extension to strtod over original ANSI C90 which is what
newlib started with. I'll start working on it, but don't expect
anything too quick.
-- Jeff J.
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This is a newlib issue. I redirected this to the appropriate mailing
list newlib AT sourceware DOT or
This is a newlib issue. I redirected this to the appropriate mailing
list newlib AT sourceware DOT org.
On Jun 20 13:00, Paul Biggar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> atof (and hence strtod) on hexadecimal numbers results in 0.0 (errno
> of 0). This may be related to an old issue where NaN isnt correctly
> pars
Hi,
atof (and hence strtod) on hexadecimal numbers results in 0.0 (errno
of 0). This may be related to an old issue where NaN isnt correctly
parsed. I believe it isnt correct behaviour:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/functions/atof.html
I've tested it for integers in the range
8 matches
Mail list logo