Tom Lane wrote:
The proper wording of this item is
* Find a correct rint() substitute on Windows
Fixed.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Added to TODO:
o Fix port/rint.c to be spec-compliant
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00808.php
---
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Hi everyone,
I believe that there is a small bug
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added to TODO:
o Fix port/rint.c to be spec-compliant
Actually, the TODO I had in mind was entirely not that. Getting exact
spec compliance in a completely platform-independent fashion is probably
impossible, and is certainly not worth the
Hi everyone,
I believe that there is a small bug in src/port/rint.c when the input
parameter has a fractional part of 0.5 which is demonstrated by the
attached program. It appears that the PG version of rint() rounds in the
wrong direction with respect to glibc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./test
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that there is a small bug in src/port/rint.c when the input
parameter has a fractional part of 0.5 which is demonstrated by the
attached program. It appears that the PG version of rint() rounds in the
wrong direction with respect to glibc.
Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that there is a small bug in src/port/rint.c when the input
parameter has a fractional part of 0.5 which is demonstrated by the
attached program. It appears that the PG version of rint() rounds in the
wrong direction with
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Considering that probably every modern platform has rint(), I doubt
it's worth spending time on our stopgap version to try to make it
fully IEEE-compliant ...
Except win32.
Hasn't it got something equivalent? This is IEEE-required
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The big question is, of course, how much difference does this make?
Probably not a lot. If we can find an IEEE-compliant rounding function
on Windows, I'd be happy to see rint() fixed to call it; beyond that
I think it's not worth troubling with.
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Considering that probably every modern platform has rint(), I doubt
it's worth spending time on our stopgap version to try to make it
fully IEEE-compliant ...
Except win32.
Hasn't it got something equivalent? This
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 16:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Your proposed fix wouldn't make it act the same as glibc, only move the
differences around. I believe glibc's default behavior for the
ambiguous cases is round to nearest even number. You propose
replacing round towards zero, which is what
10 matches
Mail list logo
