Tim, no, and as far as I can tell some of the claims in that thread are incorrect. Whether long double is identical to double is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it.
R has a configuration option --enable-long-double which governs whether R should use algorithms which can benefit from extended precision where applicable. However, that is entirely internal to R and has nothing to do with packages, it just changes algorithms used in R itself. It is definitely a bug in matrixStats to assume that HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE of LDOUBLE are somehow defined as they are not unless matrixStats does so. Cheers, Simon > On Apr 30, 2025, at 8:25 PM, Tim Taylor <tim.tay...@hiddenelephants.co.uk> > wrote: > > Is it correct to say that R's conditional use of long double is around > ensuring things work on platforms which have 'long double' identical to > 'double' types, as opposed to there being an odd compiler targeted that does > not even have any concept of 'long double' type? > > As background this was motivated by a query raised in the matrixStats package: > https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/matrixStats/issues/278 > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
