2 Dec
2005
2 Dec
'05
5:24 p.m.
I don't have any first hand experience with Darwin's long double, but what you wrote above seems correct according to
Actually if that's correct then things are a lot better than I feared: the text implies that the type behaves as a real type with 106-bit's in the significand. It also implies that numeric_limits<>::epsilon must be buggy for that platform. So I'm more confused than ever :-( Thanks for the reference though, that's useful. John.