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] |