Hi,
according to docs/reference sin function should print 0.0 when
Writeln (Sin(Pi):0:1);
but, with fpc 2.4.0 and 2.4.2 (x86) I've get -0.0, such a result is
not entirely correct.
This is a bug (in sin func.) or something wrong with the formatting ?
best regards
faber
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
The ld manual page lists some options you can use to reduce its memory
usage:
* --no-keep-memory (makes it re-read object symbol tables from time to
time instead of keeping them in memory all the time)
* --reduce-memory-overheads (small hash tables
faber bor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
according to docs/reference sin function should print 0.0 when
Writeln (Sin(Pi):0:1);
but, with fpc 2.4.0 and 2.4.2 (x86) I've get -0.0, such a result is
not entirely correct.
This is a bug (in sin func.) or something wrong with the formatting ?
best regards
If I were you I would print it with more digits so you see if there is any
significant difference at all.
ok I understand, I was suggested by
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/sin.html where it is
given score 0.0 for Writeln (Sin(Pi):0:1);
best regards
faber
Hi Ingemar
0.0 and -0.0 is the same number ;) it's just a quirk of the IEEE
floating point format, that there exists a positiv and negative zero
(because they use a sign bit).
-Ivo
Am 29.12.2010 12:17, schrieb Ingemar Ragnemalm:
faber bor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
according to
faber wrote:
If I were you I would print it with more digits so you see if there is any
significant difference at all.
ok I understand, I was suggested by
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/sin.html where it is
given score 0.0 for Writeln (Sin(Pi):0:1);
Transcendentals are a can
suppose I define an operator:
operator + (a: one_type; b: another_type) : one_type;
Is there any way to specify that it should be commutative, so I don't have to
additionally define the reverse:
operator + (a: another_type; b: one_type) : one_type;
Thanks
~David.
2010/12/29 David Emerson dle...@angelbase.com:
suppose I define an operator:
operator + (a: one_type; b: another_type) : one_type;
Is there any way to specify that it should be commutative, so I don't have
to
additionally define the reverse:
operator + (a: another_type; b: one_type) :
On Wed 29 Dec 2010, Honza wrote:
2010/12/29 David Emerson dle...@angelbase.com:
suppose I define an operator:
operator + (a: one_type; b: another_type) : one_type;
Is there any way to specify that it should be commutative, so I don't
have
to
additionally define the reverse:
I think you need to make sure that `a' and `b' are in the same algebraic
system before making the commutativity of the operator meaningful.
Maybe you can merge `one_type' with `another_type' into a common type,
or cast one to the other?
- Original Message -
Subject: [fpc-pascal]
2010/12/29 David Emerson dle...@angelbase.com:
On Wed 29 Dec 2010, Honza wrote:
IIRC you don't have to.
well... I do have to. I get can't determine which overloaded function to
call
because I have a lot of similar-looking functions and := operators
You're right, I verified it just now. I
11 matches
Mail list logo
