Re: isnanl, printf, and non-IEEE values

[John Spencer]

On 06/18/2012 03:06 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> 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.

where is the relation ? you are comparing apples and oranges.

--JS