[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?
|
From: |
Bruno Haible |
|
Subject: |
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jun 2007 03:46:06 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
Andreas Schwab asked:
> In which way is this different from printf("%s", (char*)1)?
The elementary operations on strings (strlen etc.) crash on (char*)1 too,
therefore one cannot blame 'printf' in particular in the string case.
The elementary operations on long doubles (==, +, isnanl, etc.) produce
no SIGSEGV; in the default settings they do not even produce a SIGFPE.
But 'printf' gives a SIGSEGV.
Bruno
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jakub Jelinek, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Mike Frysinger, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Mike Frysinger, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Mike Frysinger, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ben Pfaff, 2007/06/07