On Thursday 08 January 2009 11:55:03 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
> > On Thursday 08 January 2009 04:49:16 Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger writes:
> >> > i explicitly pulled in the
> >> > printf-posix module because i want a posix implementation on crappy
> >> > systems.
Mike Frysinger writes:
> On Thursday 08 January 2009 04:49:16 Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger writes:
>> > i explicitly pulled in the
>> > printf-posix module because i want a posix implementation on crappy
>> > systems. but i dont care if said systems have broken floating point
>> > implem
On Thursday 08 January 2009 04:49:16 Paul Eggert wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
> > i explicitly pulled in the
> > printf-posix module because i want a posix implementation on crappy
> > systems. but i dont care if said systems have broken floating point
> > implementations since i dont use float
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 1/8/2009 2:49 AM:
> If this happens often enough, perhaps gnulib should have a
> printf-posix-no-fp module that does what you want?
The newlib library, and thus cygwin, go so far as to provide the *iprintf
family of functio
Please note that my contributions to gnulib-tool so far have been
nonexistent; weigh my statements accordingly...
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> If gnulib-tool was to be rewritten in another programming language than
> shell + sed, what would be the good choices?
>
> The f
Mike Frysinger writes:
> i explicitly pulled in the
> printf-posix module because i want a posix implementation on crappy systems.
> but i dont care if said systems have broken floating point implementations
> since i dont use floating point in my code.
If this happens often enough, perhaps
