Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi, tested x86_64-linux (with _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX_TR1 manually set to zero for the affected function), committed to mainline. Will go in 4.6.3 too. Hmm, why is the test of the form x 0.0, and not testing the sign of x?
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
Hi, On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi, tested x86_64-linux (with _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX_TR1 manually set to zero for the affected function), committed to mainline. Will go in 4.6.3 too. Hmm, why is the test of the form x 0.0, and not testing the sign of x? I don't know, personally I don't care much about this fallback code. If you want I can do the change. Paolo
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
Hi again, Hmm, why is the test of the form x 0.0, and not testing the sign of x? Actually, we can as well use the std::abs, no? Paolo
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Paolo Carlini pcarl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi, tested x86_64-linux (with _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX_TR1 manually set to zero for the affected function), committed to mainline. Will go in 4.6.3 too. Hmm, why is the test of the form x 0.0, and not testing the sign of x? I don't know, personally I don't care much about this fallback code. If you want I can do the change. I am surprised by your comment. You do not care and that is why you are eager to commit the patch without checking first with fellow area maintainers?
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Paolo Carlini pcarl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi again, Hmm, why is the test of the form x 0.0, and not testing the sign of x? Actually, we can as well use the std::abs, no? Paolo The point of using sign is so that signed zero is not mischaracterized, especially when cut branch is at issue.
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
Hi, I am surprised by your comment. You do not care and that is why you are eager to commit the patch without checking first with fellow area maintainers? Yes, probably my comment wan't clear enough: my point was that I cannot spend more time on this issue. I'm convinced, I may be wrong, that the current code is better than it was 6 hours ago, if I disagree, please revert it, do whatever you like, really, I will take no offense. Paolo
Re: [v3] Fix libstdc++/50880
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Paolo Carlini pcarl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am surprised by your comment. You do not care and that is why you are eager to commit the patch without checking first with fellow area maintainers? Yes, probably my comment wan't clear enough: my point was that I cannot spend more time on this issue. I'm convinced, I may be wrong, that the current code is better than it was 6 hours ago, if I disagree, please revert it, do whatever you like, really, I will take no offense. I fully appreciate you can't spend more time than you have. That is hardly an excuse to willy-nilly applying a patch without checking with fellow maintainers in special area under the pretense that you don't care and if they don't agree they just revert the patch. that way lies madness and chaos.
