Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1563 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:48:40 EST Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!gemini.oscs.montana.edu!osynw From: osynw@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Nathan Williams) Subject: Re: 386BSD: cc1 got fatal signal 6 Message-ID: <1993Feb18.161448.20546@coe.montana.edu> Keywords: n Sender: usenet@coe.montana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Montana State University References: <C2EwAp.88K@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993Feb16.215658.29848@runx.oz.au> <C2Lv2r.1Jt@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:14:48 GMT Lines: 17 In article <C2Lv2r.1Jt@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1993Feb16.215658.29848@runx.oz.au> bde@runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans) writes: >> Nope. The definitive answer is that printf and atof/scanf are inaccurate >> and turn good constants into bad ones, and gcc trusts them too much. > >OK, so what's the fix to that? Good conversion routines have been written >and implemented, it shouldn't be too hard to integrate one into printf/scanf. Richard Stallman just posted a message about GCC supporting it's own version of atof in a future version. Apparently, the Mach folks are having the same sort of problems.. Nate -- osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for nate@cs.montana.edu | these 'computer' things. Personally, home #: (406) 586-0579 | I don't think they'll catch on - Don H.