Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/04/22/14:20:05
According to Richard Dawe:
> > 4. I haven't changed _strtold()'s documentation. Should we really have
> > the exact same documentation twice (except the portablity notes)? In
> > the same file too?! There must be a better way to do this.
>
> This is an issue with many other parts of the documentation. Until we come to
> a decision, I think you should make the same edits to both files.
>
> The alternatives are:
>
> 1. duplicate the description between similar functions;
> 2. have one description as the definite one and refer (@(|x|px)ref) to that
> from the other ones;
> 3. put the description in another file and @include it in all the relevant
> pages.
Couldn't we have both functions described on the same page, but with
different @port-notes?
Something like:
#include <stdlib.h>
long double strtold(const char *s, char **endp);
long double _strtold(const char *s, char **endp);
Description
This function converts ...
<Some magic (today probably not implemented) @port-notes here that
differentiates the two functions.>
?
> > Index: djgpp/src/libc/ansi/stdlib/strtold.c
> [snip]
> > + n.mantissal = mantissa_bits & 0xffffffff;
> > + n.mantissah = (mantissa_bits >> 32) & 0xffffffff;
>
> The indentation looks inconsistent here.
Indeed. Looks in this mail. The code looks fine. It seems my emacs
inserts tabs when I tabify to make the lines line up. Is that a
problem?
> Apart from that, the patch looks good to me. But I think you need to answer
> Eli's concerns about FP emulation, before an updated patch can go in.
"FP emulation"? You mean unmasking of the signal, right? (Otherwise
there's some mail missing. I haven't managed to mail or forward
my answers to Eric Rudd(?)'s complaints about div() on the djgpp
newsgroup. I've got no bounces either.)
Right,
MartinS
- Raw text -