Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

[Nix]

On 8 Jun 2007, James Youngman said:
> On 6/8/07, Nix <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I'd say this behaviour violates the principle of least astonishment, at
>> least. Mind you, avoiding it does seem like it could be expensive: [...]
>
> Maybe.  For the issue-diagnostic-message use case, performance is not
> such an issue.  But I'm sure there are valid use cases where ultimate
> performance is really vital.  Use-cases vary a lot.

I wonder if what we need is some sort of floating-point-number
validation function that we could call if we thought the number we were
about to print may be suspect. (But even then, *any* double may be
rendered suspect by bad RAM, and that's a problem that will only
increase as RAM densities rise.)

-- 
`... in the sense that dragons logically follow evolution so they would
 be able to wield metal.' --- Kenneth Eng's colourless green ideas sleep
 furiously