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 (pgsql-hacke
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 tro
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
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.
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 i
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
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-r
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 res
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 gli
