Re: [Mingw-users] NAN handled incorrectly by printf(), ok by snprintf()

[Peter S. <bcf...@gm...>]

Thanks Keith, for the many solutions you provide.
Sorry for asking a "frequently asked question".
but I found it impossible to find anything relevant on the web.

Apparently processing the format string in printf() and friends is not
an intrinsic part of gcc, but handled at runtime

The C99 standard prescribes the layout for NaN and Infinity, but
Microsoft's runtime library does not confirm to this.
(It doesn't even confirm to its own description on msdn)

The options you describe have the desired effect,
e.g. compiling with -std=c90 or -std=c11.
But, strangely enough -std=gnu99 and -std=gnu11 result in the broken
Microsoft behaviour. I would not call that C99 with gnu "extensions",
but rather regressions. Unfortunately this is also the default for gcc.

I can't find any mention of the -posix option on the gcc website
but it works.

Thanks again



>On 16/03/17 13:19, Peter Smulders wrote:
> > A "double" with value NaN or Infinity produces strange results when
> > formatted by printf() or by sprintf(), but gives the expected result
> > when formatted by snprintf().
>
>How many times must this be asked, and answered?  Anyway, let's
>summarize it one more time.
>
> > From the program below you expect 3 times the same line:
>
>No, I don't, (unless it's compiled with -posix, or any of the
>- -std options which define __STRICT_ANSI__, or any of the feature
>test macros identified below).
>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <math.h>
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> >   char buf[24];
> >
> >   printf("%7.2f %7.2f\n",NAN, INFINITY);
> >   sprintf(buf,"%7.2f %7.2f",NAN,INFINITY); puts(buf);
>
>In each of these cases, I expect to see whatever output Microsoft's
>printf() implementation will produce.
>
> >   snprintf(buf,23,"%7.2f %7.2f",NAN,INFINITY); puts(buf);
>
>whereas in this case, since Microsoft don't provide snprintf(), you
>get the (arguably saner) output of MinGW's implementation.
>
> > }
> >
> > However the output is:
> >
> >    1.#R    1.#J
> >    1.#R    1.#J
>
>Which is just how Microsoft's printf() implementation will format it;
>if you consider it to be weird, take it up with them.
>
> >     nan     inf
>
>MinGW's implementation will always format NaNs and INFs thus, and
>snprintf() is always the MinGW implementation.  If you want MinGW's
>implementation to replace those printf() functions which Microsoft
>also provide, you must explicitly request it; compile with -posix,
>or any of the ANSI -std=... options, or add one of:
>
>   #define _GNU_SOURCE
>   #define _BSD_SOURCE  /* not recommended, unless it really is */
>   #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700 /* or lesser multiples of 100 */
>   #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L /* or other POSIX std value */
>
>before you include any header.