Re: Number of significand bits in long double?

2005-08-05 Thread Denis Antrushin
Steve Kargl wrote: On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:15:33PM +0400, Denis Antrushin wrote: Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone confirm or refute that the working number of bits in the significand of long double type is 53 on i386? Yes, this is what IEEE 754 requires. (See http://docs.sun.com/source

Re: Number of significand bits in long double?

2005-08-05 Thread Denis Antrushin
Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone confirm or refute that the working number of bits in the significand of long double type is 53 on i386? Yes, this is what IEEE 754 requires. (See http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html, section 'The IEEE Standard') ___

Re: RFC: "-exit" option for find(1)

2004-07-16 Thread Denis Antrushin
Alfred Perlstein wrote: I'm up too late, this doesn't work because find returns success whenever it successfully runs thought everything. Perhaps the primary change to just "-exit" which would make find exit successfully, and if the primary is never encountered (ie. our find logic never hits it) fi