>> We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing >> problems.
> No, but changing the code *back* before 1.0 was a thing I didn't want to do. I was surprised you put that change in that close to 1.0. Taking it back should have been a simple revert. > I rememenber now thinking that long double was a net gain, if imperfectly, > because on systems with full long double support it would address the > overflow issue, while leaving us no worse off than before elsewhere. How much hardware has support for long doubles? What is the performance impact of no hardware support? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
