Re: Net version 1.1.0: gcc 2.95.2-2 compiler bug

[Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 01:03:42PM +0100, David Starks-Browning wrote:
>Is this fix likely to get incorporated into latest soon, or should I
>add something to the FAQ about it?

It should be in the next release.

I'll release a new DLL as soon as the problems that Suhaib is reporting
are solved.

cgf

>On Tuesday 11 Jul 00, Ulrich Jakobus writes:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> concerning the following problem:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 01:42:35PM -1000, Jim Heasley wrote:
>> > >In porting some astronomical data handling software from linux/unix to
>> > >Cygwin (the latest nework release, 1.1.0 I believe), I discovered an
>> > >error in how gcc 2.95.2-2 generates output of a floating or double
>> > >variable set to 0.0 when formatted with a %E format.  I didn't get any
>> > >hits on this problem in the FAQ or mail lists.  The following little
>> > >test program illustrates the problem:
>> >
>> > To investigate this problem, please check out the 'newlib' part of the
>> > cygwin package.  That's where things like printf are implemented.
>> > 
>> > cgf
>> 
>> Please see the earlier discussions about that problem in 
>> this mailing list:
>> 
>>  - cygwin-1.1.2: printf("%e") broken
>>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-06/msg00358.html
>> 
>>  - Latest gcc/cygwin - bug in %e format specifier?
>>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-06/msg00730.html
>> 
>>  - Re: Latest gcc/cygwin - bug in %e format specifier?
>>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-06/msg00745.html
>> 
>> The last reference has a fix in vfprintf.c:
>> 
>> 2000-06-15  DJ Delorie  <dj@cygnus.com>
>> 
>>         * libc/stdio/vfprintf.c: pad 0.0 correctly with %e

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com