Re: isnanl, printf, and non-IEEE values

[Bruno Haible]

John Spencer wrote:
> its not the job of the libc to make broken code happy.
> 
> i dont think its a good idea to make thousands of correct programs slower,
> just that GNU guys dont have to fix one program.

Following your argumentation, we don't need
  - W^X protection in the x86 hardware,
  - address space layout randomization in the kernel,
  - support for -fstack-protector, -fmudflag, and -fbounds-check in gcc
    and libc,
  - double-free checks in libc,
  - function pointer encryption in libc.

We don't need all this, because broken programs are easily identified
and all other programs are correct, right?

Read <http://cansecwest.com/csw08/csw08-holtmann.pdf>.

Bruno