From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c83229a21d53b2b3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Al Christians Subject: Re: Long Float Error from Gnat Date: 1998/10/30 Message-ID: <3639E95A.DD8459CD@easystreet.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 406714729 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3638F49C.E90A401E@easystreet.com> <71cl18$ni2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news14.ispnews.com 909764358 206.103.56.94 (Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:19:18 EDT) Organization: Trillium Resources Corporation MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:19:18 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I hit that error reading a file that was also created by a program compiled by GNAT. The file had nearly a million numbers in it, and about 20% had been read before any producing an error was found. In my case, the workaround was simple. I went back and changed the program that wrote the file, replacing 'aft => 9' with 'aft => 10'. This increased file size by about a million bytes, giving yet more precision than I probably will ever need. After this change everything ran with no problem, although I have no idea if using aft => 10 will prevent all such errors. I'll take a wild guess that this has something to do with 10 non-zero decimal digits (1 before and 9 after) being the most that one can ever fit into a 32-bit integer. How the exponent of -32 relates to this IDK. There was one posting on chat@gnat.com about a month ago reporting something similar with exponents around -33 or -34, but I didn't see find responses in the archive. Actually, I am pleased to know that this is not the Pentium Pro numeric bug. I was too busy and lazy back when that was in the papers to do anything about getting Intel to provide me updated processors. Thanks for letting me know that this is not a case of me being skewered by my own sloth. Al jrcarter001@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > Scary. I get the same results with 3.10p1 on Win95; using -gnato doesn't > change anything. >