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

[Jeremy Linton <jli at greshamstorage dot com>]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > Even if the correctness is simply resistance to errors.
>
> One doesn't have to read past this sentence to realize you don't
> understand the first thing about correct programming and the people who
> are supposed to do this.  Silently ignoring failures is the worst
> possible way.  A programmer must be forced to correct the program and
> this can only be achieved by the program going down in flames.
	Really? Have you ever written something that must not crash? This 
thread is about printf crashing on invalid inputs that could be checked. 
I'm not suggesting you ignore the failure, there are other options. I 
don't care if you display "hey stupid programmer, the input is invalid" 
but crashing the program is unacceptable for most people that actually 
care about their work. There is a time for crashing the program in these 
circumstances but, as I pointed out earlier you probably want a debug 
version to do that rather than the version running on the final machine.
	You could simply move this error into one of the dozen other floating 
point states that don't represent valid numerical values either and 
handle it as such.

	

> There is not point in further polluting this list with all this
> nonsense.  Go somewhere else where you can discuss your flawed ideas of
> programming.
	Your arrogance and expertise is also evident. There are dozens of other 
solutions and your stubbornness to consider or provide useful reasons 
instead of random flaming is truly helpful.