Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

I could also use some help with autotools and the Perl test scripts < I am a novice at both :) > Here is a bit of test code I came up with. Do you think this is necessary and or the right approach for testing with extreme values of double and long long? >From 4a6e84061fbf2180cf4efec45a215dd8af648

[bug #66499] Parameter for option -j seems not to be validated and can cause hangs

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #66499 (group make): Thanks for review, Paul. Heiko, do you mind sharing the scenario that causes you to specify such high value of jobs? ___ Reply to this item at:

Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

On Mon, 2024-12-09 at 01:49 -0800, Pete Dietl wrote: > Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:37:14 +0100, Jouke Witteveen wrote: > > What I remember from the original thread is that we first needed a > > good proposal. I'm afraid the existence of the implementation > > suggested now sidesteps the discussion on what f

Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

Jouke, Wed, 20 May 2020 13:42:11 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > > Another option would be to introduce some new syntax like $(()), > > but that might break existing Makefiles and would probably be more > > work, though it looks cleaner IMO. > No, I don't agree with that. Trying to change the base ma

Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:11 AM Paul Smith wrote: > I reviewed the previous (lengthy) email thread before looking at this > patch. I guess you mean the thread that at some point was titled "math expressions" [1]. Was there any conclusion there? At some point it gravitated to a shell/Posix-style e

Re: [PATCH] Add arithmetic builtin functions

Paul, Thanks for the review! 1. I will remove the use of GCC C extensions, the use of the _Generic C11 feature, and the use of compound literals. 2. I do need help getting started on the copyright paperwork though I seem to remember completing this before. At any rate, I will sign it again if nece