Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that many people do not like the name 'popcount'.
> How about the name 'count_one_bits'? It is a little longer, but
> it should be possible for many people to guess what it does
> without resorting to jargon.
Having received one private vote in fa
On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
On Jul 23, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:27 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hello,
mkdir confdir1
mkdir confdir2
echo ... > confdir1/conftest.h
echo ... > confdir2/conftest.h
save_CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS"
On Jul 23, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:27 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hello,
mkdir confdir1
mkdir confdir2
echo ... > confdir1/conftest.h
echo ... > confdir2/conftest.h
save_CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS"
CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -Iconfdir1 -Iconfdir2"
AC_PREP
Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They want to force replacement functions
> > for fseeko down our throat when configure detected that fflush for "r"
> > streams doesn't work. This breaks obviously on DragonFly, but I don't
> > think this test should be allowed at all. *sigh* I hate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sending private mails is less likely to get anything resolved in an open
source community, so I am adding relevant lists in on the discussion.
According to Thomas Klausner on 7/24/2007 10:45 AM:
> FYI
>
> - Forwarded message from Joerg Sonnenberg
It seems that many people do not like the name 'popcount'.
How about the name 'count_one_bits'? It is a little longer, but
it should be possible for many people to guess what it does
without resorting to jargon.
--
Ben Pfaff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Pfaff wrote:
The name 'popcount' is not perfect, but it is a well-known name
for this function. That is what it is called by, e.g., GCC,
Wikipedia, and _Hacker's Delight_.
Actually Wikipedia "popcount" and "population count" redirect to
"Hamming weight" :-).
I don't see why anyone woul
Hi Eric,
Which one do I follow?
For GNU packages, the recommendation is to use "GNU " stuff as
in maintain.texi, but there is some leeway for those who feel strongly
the other way.
but is different than what the GPL suggests
Clearly the GPL can't talk about GNU packages specifically.
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I do agree that 'hamming_weight' is a precise name for this
> function. But it is not a descriptive name: one must know by
> rote what a Hamming weight is.
Yes, 'hamming_weight' does not help the understanding unless you are
already familiar with it.
> Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PRO
