hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31561#731498, @dexonsmith wrote:
> Marshall, that's what I assumed originally, but I figured Hal had some > non-standard-but-worth-supporting use case in mind. In this case, future-proofing and mathematical precision seemed aligned. I suspect that we'll end up with fixed-point types, etc. at some point, and users already certainly have such types (although it is true that using those types with the std:: math functions is not something we're required to support). > Hal, what do you think? I think that it is fine either way. Marshall is certainly correct, there are no types we're required to support that makes this a meaningful distinction. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31561 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
