Re: isnanl, printf, and non-IEEE values

[John Spencer]

*sigh*.
talking to you guys is like talking to a wall.
seriously, with your attitude you will render GNU a complete joke in 
less than a decade, even moreso than it is already.
unfortunately that will also affect the FSF.

On 06/19/2012 04:37 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 06:27 PM, John Spencer wrote:
> > easy: add a check for the invalid LD bit representations
> How does one do that, exactly?  I thought the
> whole point of the proposed exercise was that code must
> be portable to any standard C implementation.
> So, where's the portable code to do what you're
> proposing?

#ifdef SYS_USES_LD80
x = get_valid_ld80_or_zero(x);
#endif

OSLT. why should i care ? go figure it out yourself. it is your (GNU) 
freaking octaldump program that is broken (unless it uses a specially 
patched libc), not mine.

> > who uses LD80 values in files anyway ?
> Lots of people.  A quick Google search found
> "I have a binary file of long double values created with fwrite in C"
> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2586295/importing-c-written-binary-files-into-matlab>
> I'm sure one can find more examples.
wow. in the depths of the internets you found one guy that wants to 
write floats into a file. amazing.
and from that you judge that lots of people do.

...

anyway this is irrelevant, it is valid for a program to desire reading 
and writing long double values into a value,
and it is valid for a program to desire that invalid bit patterns don't 
crash a program.

*it is not valid though to expect that the LIBC will do "The Right 
Thing" magically*

if you want this behaviour in a program, code it into the program, for 
fucks sake.
> > neither me nor paul were talking about printf().
> No, I was talking about printf.
not it that paragraph.
> > you're forcing your printf replacement on implementations
> There's no force here.  The process is entirely voluntary.
ah perfect then, so please educate me where i can find the hidden switch 
to tell GNULIB:

"NO I DONT WANT YOUR F****** BROKEN REPLACEMENT FUNCTIONS, THAT EVEN 
FAIL TO COMPILE WITH AN #ERROR, BECAUSE ITS AUTHORS ARE MORONS THAT 
DISABLED THE EXISTING PORTABLE FALLBACK CODE" ?

or

"YES, I AM FINE WITH A PRINTF THAT BAILS OUT ON INVALID BIT PATTERNS, 
BECAUSE THAT'S UB AND HOW C WORKS. DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR SHITTY REPLACEMENT 
ON ME" ?

you know, reading 20.000 lines of ugly generated autoconf script code is 
pretty though; i can't spot the "voluntary" option myself.