Comment author: @xavierleroy

I'm not sure who is wrong: the %f format of OCaml that relies on the C library sprintf() function to print infinities and other special FP values (unless HAS_BROKEN_PRINTF is defined), or the test because it assumes a specific printout for those values. At any rate the problem is not specific to OpenIndiana, it's just triggered by OpenIndiana.

Comment author: @xavierleroy

It gets worse. According to C99:

A double argument representing an infinity is converted in one of the styles
[-]inf or [-]infinity — which style is implementation-defined.

So, OpenIndiana's "Inf" is not C99-compliant. But assuming "inf" to be the result of the test is wrong as well...

Comment author: grueni

Maybe a solution is to use a function to test for infinity. This should solve the differences in the implementations.

I have no idea how to do it in ocaml.
In C:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>

int main()
{
double a = 1.0/0.0;
printf("1./.0 = %f\n",a);
printf("1./.0 = Inf %s\n",isinf(a)?"true":"false");
return 0;
}

And the reference would be:
1./.0 = Inf true

Comment author: @rixed

Many people, including myself, expect %F to print in a format not only compatible with float_of_string, but also with the OCaml parser. Meaning infinity should be printed as "infinity" and "neg_infinity".

This seems to be a problem that keeps reappearing:

#2724
#8233
#4688
#5739

Would that change be accepted?

This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.