Hi, On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > For the glibc, I've finally reported a bug here: > > > > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13658 > > > > That is about 1.0e22, not the obscene 4.47460300787e+182 of the > > original poster. > > But 1.0e22 cannot be handled correctly. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, 1e22 isn't handled correctly, but this thread was about 4.47460300787e+182 until you changed topics. > > If you want to have precise numbers use an arbitrary precision math > > library. > > This is double precision. An arbitrary precision math library (even > though I develop one) shouldn't be needed. But the reduction step needs much more precision than it currently uses to handle inputs as large as 4e182 correctly. Ciao, Michael.
