Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/06/24/10:44:28
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Eric Rudd wrote:
> Done, but bear in mind that the names exp2 and exp10 will be standard once C9x
> issues, so we will eventually want to change this scheme back to the way it was.
I don't see what will need to be changed for C9X, except moving the
prototypes to the ANSI section of the headers. I don't think users will
mind to pay an extra jmp, even when exp2 and exp10 are ANSI.
Or am I missing something?
> This, of course, shouldn't overflow. I wonder if you did the same in testing
> ldexp?
No, I didn't test it at all. I simply looked at the source. I guess I
overlooked something, but it seemed to me that the result of fscale is
not checked against the maximum possible number that a double can hold.
- Raw text -