On Fri, Dec 03, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:00:10PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > For __isnanf, libc exports __isn...@fbsd_1.0, and libm exports
> > > __isn...@fbsd_1.2. I suspect that we could export both
> > > __is
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:00:10PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > For __isnanf, libc exports __isn...@fbsd_1.0, and libm exports
> > __isn...@fbsd_1.2. I suspect that we could export both
> > __isn...@fbsd_1.0 and __isn...@fbsd_1.2 from libc.
>
> I l
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> For __isnanf, libc exports __isn...@fbsd_1.0, and libm exports
> __isn...@fbsd_1.2. I suspect that we could export both
> __isn...@fbsd_1.0 and __isn...@fbsd_1.2 from libc.
I like the idea of adding an __isn...@fbsd_1.2 alias to libc for
the benefit o
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> Any thoughts on removing the isnanf and __isnanf symbols from
> >> libm? Both symbols are already in libc for historical reasons, so
> >> the duplication isn't needed.
> >>
> >> Although we've had the duplicate isnanf symbol in libm for several
> >>
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:57:28PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, David Schultz wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> > > > Author: das
> > > > Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> > > > New Re
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, David Schultz wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, David Schultz wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
>>> > > Author: das
>>>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, David Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, David Schultz wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
>> > > Author: das
>> > > Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
>> > > New Revision: 209110
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, David Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> > > Author: das
> > > Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> > > New Revision: 209110
> > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209110
> >
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, David Schultz wrote:
Oops, to complicate matters further, I just noticed that we
already have isnanf and __isnanf symbols in libc, so maybe the new
symbol isn't needed. (isnan() and isnanf() are in libc because
that's where they were historically.) The second version in
li
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> > Author: das
> > Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> > New Revision: 209110
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209110
> >
> > Log:
> > Introduce __isnanf() as an alias for is
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> Author: das
> Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> New Revision: 209110
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209110
>
> Log:
> Introduce __isnanf() as an alias for isnanf(), and make the isnan()
> macro expand to __isnanf() i
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> > Author: das
> > Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> > New Revision: 209110
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209110
> >
> > Log:
> > Introduce __isnanf() as an alias for isnanf
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:32:05PM +, David Schultz wrote:
> Author: das
> Date: Sat Jun 12 17:32:05 2010
> New Revision: 209110
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209110
>
> Log:
> Introduce __isnanf() as an alias for isnanf(), and make the isnan()
> macro expand to __isnanf() i
13 matches
Mail list logo