Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/06/24/10:29:29
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I would suggest to submit a bug report anyway, and let the maintainer
> decide what would be the best practical way of solving that.
I'll do that, after my work on the math functions tapers off a bit.
> The pow2 and pow10 cases are taken care of by libc/stubs.h, so you
> don't have to do anything. As for exp2 and exp10, since they aren't
> ANSI, I suggest to remove _exp2 and _exp10 labels from pow2.S and
> pow10.S, and add two short .S files that jmp to __pow2 and __pow10,
> respectively.
Done, but bear in mind that the names exp2 and exp10 will be standard once C9x
issues, so we will eventually want to change this scheme back to the way it was.
> > I will zip up the corrected docs along with the new source.
I have just uploaded the changes to DJ's server in the file
/incoming/math0624.zip
I also made modifications to about half of your docs. Most of the changes were
to include additional information about behavior for exceptional arguments. I
also changed the wording here and there to clarify the descriptions. If you
have objections to any of the changes, edit them as you see fit.
You had also mentioned a possible problem with ldexp not setting ERANGE. Last
night, while testing it further, I typed in some args wrong, and realized what
the problem might have been. To test for overflow, I typed in 1, 1E400 for the
arguments, and didn't get ERANGE. I then realized that the second argument in
an integer, and the %d format just read in the 1E400 as 1 for the exponent.
This, of course, shouldn't overflow. I wonder if you did the same in testing
ldexp?
-Eric Rudd
- Raw text -