Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:56:37 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Implementing C99's roundf(), round(), and roundl() Message-ID: <20031202165346.P10017@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20031202033941.GA98836@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20031129000133.GA30662@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20031129163105.GA32651@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20031201182219.O4431@gamplex.bde.org> <20031202091936.I8778@gamplex.bde.org> <20031202033941.GA98836@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:57:33AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > RIght, but we have fpgetsticky(), etc. > > Can we use fpgetsticky() and friends to implement > parts of <fenv.h> or does this cause some (disallowed) > namespace pollution? Not quite, and yes. The fp* namespace basically needs to be cloned instead of layered over. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202165346.P10017>