Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1649 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:51:58 EST Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!wupost!usc!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.Rice.edu!rich From: rich@Rice.edu (Richard Murphey) Subject: Re: 386BSD: cc1 got fatal signal 6 In-Reply-To: osynw@gemini.oscs.montana.edu's message of Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:14:48 GMT Message-ID: <RICH.93Feb18225543@omicron.Rice.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Reply-To: Rich@Rice.edu Organization: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University References: <C2EwAp.88K@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993Feb16.215658.29848@runx.oz.au> <C2Lv2r.1Jt@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993Feb18.161448.20546@coe.montana.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 04:55:43 GMT Lines: 22 In article <1993Feb18.161448.20546@coe.montana.edu> osynw@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Nathan Williams) writes: >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.. Is there an atof that isn't restricted by the GPL or LGPL? Although I personally support the GPL, I thought that since the other 386BSD library caried a BSD style copyright that the GPL on atof would create new restrictions on large parts of the binary distribution. I asked Bill Jolitz about this a few monthgs ago, and he suggested that an atof implementation that caried a BSD style copyright would be a big advantage. Rich