It's not broken, ... but OK, I am working on it now.
Pedro.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:13:44 PM GMT-5, Cy Schubert
<cy.schub...@cschubert.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 04:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> (Sorry for top posting)
> Oh yes, the analysis is fine, and it is quicker to fix than what I had in
> mind.
> I'll take a look at fixing it now, but due to external issues I may have to
> leave the fix for next weekend.
> Pedro.
You can't leave the tree broken for 5-7 days. Can you?
--
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org
NTP: <c...@nwtime.org> Web: https://nwtime.org
e^(i*pi)+1=0
>
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:00:51 PM GMT-5, Warner Losh
><i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023, 9:34 PM Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Hmm ...
> Dragonfly has no armv7 or i386, so they didn't get it too wrong.I guess the
> int64_t would be a quick fix or another option, which I was consideirng, was
> to look at unsigning it but taking care of the edge cases ... I was too lazy
> for that.
> Please go ahead and do the quick fix ;)
>
> What makes you say it's a quick fix? If the calculations need 64 bits,
> int64_t is the proper data type. How is that analysis wrong?
> Also, it's tradition that you should fix it...
> Warner
