From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-02 12:24:30
> 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.