Hi.
Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:32:14 +0200 (CEST), Sven.Hartrumpf wrote:
In recent weeks, bootstrapping (on svn) did not work for me.
Is bootstrap.tar.gz too old (2009-01-08 or so)?
Felix, thanks for updatin the bootstrap.tar.gz,
but it was probably a different problem:
using gcc 4.3.3 plus -O3 and
According to IEEE 754, the four expressions (expt 1.0 +inf), (expt -1.0 +inf),
(expt 1.0 -inf), and (expt -1.0 -inf) should all return +nan. In Chicken they
all return 1.0 instead. This appears to be a bug in the ISO C definition
of the pow function. Checking for these four cases and bypassing
I have subscribed again the list after a few years of absence, because I wanted
to try the new and improved hygienic Chicken ;-)
As first experiment, I tried to stress a bit syntax-rules. I tried the following
at the REPL:
(define-syntax very-static-table
(syntax-rules ()
((_ (name value)
perhaps the addition of a let-syntax would be useful above the internal
syntax-rules?
-elf
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Michele Simionato wrote:
I have subscribed again the list after a few years of absence, because I wanted
to try the new and improved hygienic Chicken ;-)
As first experiment, I
ignore previous comment
-elf
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Michele Simionato wrote:
I have subscribed again the list after a few years of absence, because I wanted
to try the new and improved hygienic Chicken ;-)
As first experiment, I tried to stress a bit syntax-rules. I tried the following
at the
Michele Simionato michele.simion...@gmail.com writes:
I have subscribed again the list after a few years of absence, because I
wanted
to try the new and improved hygienic Chicken ;-)
As first experiment, I tried to stress a bit syntax-rules. I tried the
following
at the REPL:
No, not a bug with the definition.
It depends on libm.
csi -e (print (expt 1.0 +inf))
1.0
uname -a
Linux bellini 2.6.28-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Mar 8 10:18:28 UTC 2009 i686 AMD
Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
ldd chicken/bin/csi
linux-gate.so.1 = (0xb7f1)
fulvio ciriaco scripsit:
No, not a bug with the definition. It depends on libm.
That's why I say it's a spec bug. The SUS specifies what libm does in
this case, and specifies the Wrong Thing. Or, if you like, there is a
conflict between specs.
If you think about it, multiplying -1 by itself
For what it's worth,
http://svn.plt-scheme.org/plt/trunk/src/mzscheme/sconfig.h
contains a number of platform-specific, FP-related declarations that
reflect how well different libms work in our experience. For example,
POW_HANDLES_INF_CORRECTLY is declared for NetBSD, but not for Linux.
I
Matthew Flatt scripsit:
For what it's worth,
http://svn.plt-scheme.org/plt/trunk/src/mzscheme/sconfig.h
contains a number of platform-specific, FP-related declarations that
reflect how well different libms work in our experience. For example,
POW_HANDLES_INF_CORRECTLY is declared for
At Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:43:38 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Matthew Flatt scripsit:
For what it's worth,
http://svn.plt-scheme.org/plt/trunk/src/mzscheme/sconfig.h
contains a number of platform-specific, FP-related declarations that
reflect how well different libms work in our
On Apr 28, 2009, at 1:29 PM, John Cowan wrote:
or an even number; so NaN is a sensible response. I don't know what
the motivation for (expt 1.0 +inf) being NaN is.
I suspect that the reasoning is as follows: since 1.0 is inexact, it
could easily *mean* 0.9... or
So,
different standards predicate different behaviour for 1^+infty.
And really there is no good reason to choose any value for it
rather than another.
However I cannot see how this can impact code.
Basically
pow(x,y1e23) = 0 ; x1.0
= 1 ; x=1
= +infty ; x1.0
13 matches
Mail list logo
