Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "standalong".
Did you mean:
standalone
2020 Nov 17
3
formatting issue with gcc 9.3.0 on Ubuntu on WSL2
...e(1e-16)
produced "1.00000000000000e-16" instead of the expected "1e-16".
It looks like the problem is in src/main/format.c:scientific(). The
lowest two+ bytes in the fractional part of the long double (80-bit)
return value of powl(10.0L, -30L), seem to be corrupted. I made a
standalong program to test powl and saw no problem - it gives the
same results for the fractional part as bc does.
bc: A2425FF7 5E14FC31 A125...
standalone: 22425FF7 5E14FC32
R: 22425FF7 5E151800
There are lots of other small numbers with the same problem:
>...
2006 Mar 16
21
RadRails 0.6 out
Since RadRails 0.6 is out (see http://www.radrails.org/ ), I have made a
"celebratory illustrated tutorial" on how to use the Eclipse update function
to do the upgrade from within Eclipse (I found the process a tad confusing):
http://wiki.awebfactory.com.ar/awebfactory/published/UpdateRadRails
saludos,
Victor Kane
awebfactory.com.ar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML
2020 Nov 18
2
formatting issue with gcc 9.3.0 on Ubuntu on WSL2
...; instead of the expected "1e-16".
> >
> > It looks like the problem is in src/main/format.c:scientific(). The
> > lowest two+ bytes in the fractional part of the long double (80-bit)
> > return value of powl(10.0L, -30L), seem to be corrupted. I made a
> > standalong program to test powl and saw no problem - it gives the
> > same results for the fractional part as bc does.
> >
> > bc: A2425FF7 5E14FC31 A125...
> > standalone: 22425FF7 5E14FC32
> > R: 22425FF7 5E151800
> >
> > There are lots of other s...
2020 Nov 18
0
formatting issue with gcc 9.3.0 on Ubuntu on WSL2
...1.00000000000000e-16" instead of the expected "1e-16".
>
> It looks like the problem is in src/main/format.c:scientific(). The
> lowest two+ bytes in the fractional part of the long double (80-bit)
> return value of powl(10.0L, -30L), seem to be corrupted. I made a
> standalong program to test powl and saw no problem - it gives the
> same results for the fractional part as bc does.
>
> bc: A2425FF7 5E14FC31 A125...
> standalone: 22425FF7 5E14FC32
> R: 22425FF7 5E151800
>
> There are lots of other small numbers with the same problem:...
2008 Jun 03
4
[LLVMdev] Why llvm-gcc? Another beginner's question.
What is the reason for llvm-gcc? Will regular gcc work (except for the
releases that are broken, of course)? Does llvm in any way depend on
features of llvm-gcc instead of gcc?
Or is it optional? Was it conceived to give llvm itself a through
shakedown? Is it there just in case you really want llvm code in some
form from a C program? Is such llvm code necessary for some kind of use
--