Re: %a format in tests-ulc*.c

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible wrote:
> Why would you consider the expected result "0x1.922p+1" wrong?

The POSIX spec says "if the precision is missing and FLT_RADIX is a power of 2, 
then the precision shall be sufficient for an exact representation of the value; 
if the precision is missing and FLT_RADIX is not a power of 2, then the 
precision shall be sufficient to distinguish values of type double, except that 
trailing zeros may be omitted". Since the spec goes to the trouble of saying 
that trailing zeros may be omitted when FLT_RADIX is not a power of 2, and does 
not go to this trouble when FLT_RADIX is a power of 2, I inferred that when 
FLT_RADIX is a power of 2, trailing zeros cannot be omitted.

Although your interpretation is also plausible, if it is correct then I am 
puzzled why the "trailing zeros may be omitted" wording is present. Is there 
some subtle distinction between "sufficient for an exact representation of the 
value" and "sufficient to distinguish values" that I am not getting?