[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?
|
From: |
Jan-Benedict Glaw |
|
Subject: |
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!? |
|
Date: |
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:46:13 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Thu, 2007-06-07 10:02:53 -0500, Jeremy Linton <address@hidden> wrote:
> From monitoring this mailing list for a while it appears apparent
> that certain people pride themselves in rejecting any patch which
> improves
> the robustness of glibc.
Is "robustness" like "not crashing loudly when used out-of-specs"? I'd
rather like to fix the bugs...
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw address@hidden +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Alles sollte so einfach wie möglich gemacht sein.
the second : Aber nicht einfacher. (Einstein)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, (continued)
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Paul Mackerras, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Bruno Haible, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/07
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Bruno Haible, 2007/06/06
[PATCH] Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jakub Jelinek, 2007/06/06
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jeremy Linton, 2007/06/07
arch-independent glibc printf segfault for "special" long double values, Jim Meyering, 2007/06/08