Re: [Mingw-users] msvcrt printf bug
On 19-Jan-17 05:01, KHMan wrote:
> On 1/19/2017 8:36 AM, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 18/01/17 23:34, Emanuel Falkenauer wrote:
>> [snip snip]
>>> I would LOVE to use _your_ printf... but remember: the whole story is
>>> about comparing with Borland builds, where it's not available.
>> Well, you are always likely to be on a hiding to nothing, when
>> you compare apples with oranges, and expect identity -- in this
>> case, how can you possibly expect consistency between Borland's
>> proprietary (likely undisclosed) algorithm and A. N. Other's?
>> If you want guaranteed consistency, you'd better use identically
>> the same algorithm; what's to stop you compiling, and using, our printf() in your Borland builds, in place of their proprietary
> Heh, I'm enjoying this thread, just kicking back now. :-) Once
> Bruce's blog post was disclosed it became obvious what Tei locked
> onto. Before that we were just guessing.
> Totally worries me that some embedded and aerospace folks have
> this kind of viewpoint. Often engineering folks are left to take
> up programming on their own devices and sometimes they end up
> grasping stuff in idiosyncratic ways. They can be very stubbornly
> sure of their views...
Well, that's a very "interesting" viewpoint... can you explain in what
way "embedded and aerospace folks" would make worse programmers than
yourself? What kind of "folks" are YOU?!
I HATE bragging, I really do (I think others should evaluate your
worth), but you forced me to it: I actually happen to have a PhD in
computer science, besides also having an engineering degree - do you? If
you need, google me (there is definitely just one Emanuel Falkenauer on
the whole web) - and don't skip Google Scholar.
Phew... you're frankly tiring with your supposed "grandiosity".
> I think Emanuel should seriously bite the bullet and use David
> Gay's code. It's the de facto standard among Open Source projects
> and probably many, many closed source projects or commercial apps
> all over the planet. It's probably much faster than an
> implementation of a basic conversion algorithm. Versions of it has
> accumulated over 25 years of usage in countless machines. All that
> is needed is just a one-time porting effort to your company's
> standards. After all, in the end it's just an ASCII representation
> ULP issue, CPU calcs were just fine. Just as nobody got fired for
> using IBM, it is hard to say that using well-used code from Bell
> Labs is bad decision-making. Looks like a no-brainer to me.
Don't worry: just waiting for Keith to get hold of their (s)printf
sources to have a look at them.
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
MinGW-users mailing list
This list observes the Etiquette found at
We ask that you be polite and do the same. Disregard for the list etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: