X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com Message-ID: <53.1e0906df.2f075c22@aol.com> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:51:30 EST Subject: Re: More complaints from tests/libclink/check To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_53.1e0906df.2f075c22_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6033 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com --part1_53.1e0906df.2f075c22_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At this point, it is not clear to me that the float and double versions of math functions in our math library satisfy C99 (as amended). If it doesn't matter, perhaps > 2. add what we got right now. would work out satisfactorily. KB Williams (nee Kenneth Barton Williams) In a message dated 12/31/2004 8:13:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se writes: > I'm CC-ing Kbwms AT aol DOT com as I'm not sure (s)he's on this list (thanks > Eli for the coder's email). > > According to Kbwms AT aol DOT com: > >In a message dated 12/31/2004 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, > eliz AT gnu DOT org > >writes: > > > >>They might. You should be able to find them here: > >> > >> ftp://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/contrib/kbwilliams-newlongs_dt00.zip > >> > >>You can talk to K.B. Williams, who worked on that stuff (CC'ed), if > >>you have any questions. (The first question I'd ask is whether > >>there's a newer version of these functions.) > > > >At this moment, the long double functions are incomplete. There are > certain > >user interface problems that have to be worked out in the functions > themselves > >and the test suite has to be reworked. I am only now getting back into > >harness. My best guess is that it will take at least four months to get > everything > >squared away. > > Ok. Should we > > 0. wait for the long double versions to to complete, > > 1. add the non-long double versions and add the long double versions > later, or > > 2. add what we got right now. > > > I'm willing to do any of the above. A plus would be if we could do > this the nearest days as I think I'll have some time DJGPP _NOW_. If > we delay a week, my window of time is probably lost and we'll have to > wait a year or two or so... > > This is not to put pressure on anyone. It's ok whatever happens; I'm > just stating my time availability. > --part1_53.1e0906df.2f075c22_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At this point, it is not clear to me=20= that the float and double versions of math functions in our math library sat= isfy C99 (as amended).  If it doesn't matter, perhaps

>  2. add what we got right now.
<= BR> would work out satisfactorily.


KB Williams (nee Kenneth Barton Williams)


In a message dated 12/31/2004 8:13:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, ams AT ludd DOT ltu= .se writes:

I'm CC-ing Kbwms AT aol DOT com as I'= m not sure (s)he's on this list (thanks
Eli for the coder's email).

According to Kbwms AT aol DOT com:
>In a message dated 12/31/2004 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, eliz AT gnu= .org
>writes:
>
>>They might.  You should be able to find them here:
>>
>>  ftp://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/contrib/kbwilliams-newlongs_d= t00.zip
>>
>>You can talk to K.B. Williams, who worked on that stuff (CC'ed), if<= BR> >>you have any questions.  (The first question I'd ask is whether=
>>there's a newer version of these functions.)
>
>At this moment, the long double functions are incomplete.  There ar= e certain
>user interface problems that have to be worked out in the functions them= selves
>and the test suite has to be reworked.  I am only now getting back=20= into
>harness.  My best guess is that it will take at least four months t= o get everything
>squared away.

Ok. Should we

0. wait for the long double versions to to complete,

1. add the non-long double versions and add the long double versions
later, or

2. add what we got right now.


I'm willing to do any of the above. A plus would be if we could do
this the nearest days as I think I'll have some time DJGPP _NOW_. If
we delay a week, my window of time is probably lost and we'll have to
wait a year or two or so...

This is not to put pressure on anyone. It's ok whatever happens; I'm
just stating my time availability.

<= BR> --part1_53.1e0906df.2f075c22_boundary--