🚀 go-pugleaf

I compiled and ran the following code on my system to attempt 
to find out how much precision existed in the various data types:  
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
/*   FUNCTION DECLARATIONS   */
 
#include <stdio.h> 
 
/*   DEFINITION OF main   */ 
 
#define TestNumber 7.53985739 
 
int main (void) { 
 
   long double ldx; 
 
   ldx = TestNumber;  /*  The variable "ldx" should be a floating-point  */ 
                      /*  variable with at least as much precision as a  */ 
                      /*  variable of type "double".                     */  
 
   printf (" \n"); 
   printf (" Size of int    = %d \n", sizeof (int)); 
   printf (" Size of long   = %d \n", sizeof (long)); 
   printf (" \n"); 
   printf (" Size of double       = %d \n", sizeof (double)); 
   printf (" Size of long double  = %d \n", sizeof (long double)); 
   printf (" \n"); 
   printf (" Size of ldx            = %d \n", sizeof ldx); 
   printf (" Presumed Value of ldx  = %10.8f \n", (double) TestNumber); 
   printf (" Actual Value of ldx    = %10.8f \n", (double) ldx); 
   printf (" \n"); 
 
   return 0; } 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I did, I got the following output: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Size of int    = 4
 Size of long   = 4

 Size of double       = 8
 Size of long double  = 4

 Size of ldx            = 4
 Presumed Value of ldx  = 7.53985739
 Actual Value of ldx    = 7.00000000

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Apparently, my damn compiler thinks that "long double" is an integer 
data type.  I guess it thinks "long double" is the same as "long (int)".  
From reading the second (ANSI C) edition of K & R, I have concluded 
that this is not correct as far as the ANSI standard is concerned.  
What I am wondering is, previous to the ANSI standard, what, if 
anything, was "long double" supposed to refer to?  Is my compiler 
consistent with some earlier definition of C, or is it just plain 
squirrelly?  
 
                  - Kevin Jay Miller 
 `