https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.3|14.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b880466e910b4f1be2ea2d0d9cb9407d24ca299
commit r14-5341-g0b880466e910b4f1be2ea2d0d9cb9407d24ca299
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.2|13.3
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|13.2
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.2|13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|12.0|12.2
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #19 from Jiang An ---
Oh... I was wrong. TR1 mentioned -f and -l variants of "new" (C99) function
families (e.g. truncf), but no those of "old" (C89) math function families.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #18 from Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tilman.vogel at web dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #14 from Kip Warner ---
Thanks Jonathan, but I still think you are mistaken in that you don't
understand why the function exists in its various forms. Your explanation is
technical and not philosophical.
Whether it was originally inh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kip Warner from comment #12)
> I didn't say STL. I said library designers which includes the standard C
> runtime.
Why a particular name is used by C is not relevant to C++. The function is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #12 from Kip Warner ---
I didn't say STL. I said library designers which includes the standard C
runtime. And no, I don't agree with you. Separate names are helpful for greater
certainty. As for std::ceilf existing just for consistenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Nope, ceilf comes from C, which has no overloading.
C++ doesn't need separate names for ceil, ceilf and ceill, so you just have
std::ceil.
The fact std::ceilf exists at all is just for consistency with C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #10 from Kip Warner ---
Thanks Jonathan, but I disagree. The point is that the caller might be wrong in
any number of assumptions. The library designers were in agreement, hence why
there is an explicit ceilf function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And calling ceilf(x) doesn't give you any certainty of single precision,
because if x is a double then it will still work, but you're now doing a
conversion from double to float.
If you already know x is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you call std::ceil with a float, you get the ceil(float) overload. If you
don't call it with a float, you haven't got subtle precision anyway and calling
ceil didn't change that.
If you need ceilf you c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #7 from Kip Warner ---
Not if I want any certainty at compile time that it is single precision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As it says, you can just use std::ceil.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Kip Warner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kip at thevertigo dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to JMB from comment #3)
> this bug should be fixed.
Yes, we know. That's why there's a bug report.
> Otherwise please give a short comment to this bug report explaining why this
> can not or sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
JMB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmb_tux at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 from JMB --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christ...@lipka-koeln.de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
26 matches
Mail list logo
