Jean Brouwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Mark,
Take a look at the SUN forum, there is a (long) answer. <http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5308106&tstart=0> /Jean On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Jean Brouwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jean Brouwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > Right on! With errno = 0; in between both calls: > > -Inf 33 > Inf 0 > > /Jean > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: >> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Jean Brouwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> result is different for 32- and 64-bit >>> >>> > cc -xtarget=native log_inf.c -lm ; a.out >>> -Inf 33 >>> Inf 33 >>> >> >> That 33 for the second log call may just be the propagated errno value >> from the first call. Could you try setting errno = 0 before each of the >> printf >> calls? I'd expect that log(HUGE_VAL) doesn't set errno at all. >> >> Mark >> >> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10722/unnamed >> >> _______________________________________ >> Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3167> >> _______________________________________ > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue3167> > _______________________________________ > _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3167> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
