This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
On 09 Dec 2014 15:28, Wang Weidong wrote:
> On 2014/12/9 15:11, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On 9 December 2014 at 12:38, Wang Weidong wrote:
> >> When I was using the printf() and gcvt(), I got a difference below:
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> On Uclibc(0.9.31):
> >>
> >> printf("%.1f\n",3.25); ------>3.3
> >>
> >> gcvt(1e-100, 20, buf);
> >> printf("%s\n", buf); ------>1.0000000000000001e-100
> >>
> >> -----------------------------
> >>
> >> On Glibc(2.18/2.19/2.11):
> >>
> >> printf("%.1f\n",3.25); ------>3.2
> >>
> >> gcvt(1e-100, 20, buf);
> >> printf("%s\n", buf); ------>1e-100
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Is it a problem on the uclibc or on glibc?
> >
> > Obviously a problem with uclibc since it is losing precision.
>
> If so, Is there a patch to fix this problem?
this is the glibc list. you'd have to ask on the uclibc lists about uclibc.
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |