Re: module request: longlong

2008-07-12 Thread Ben Pfaff
Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello? is anyone there? do you only talk to each other? You would probably get better results by proposing a patch or by asking a particular person. >> * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-03 10:53:43 -0400]: >> >> longlong.m4 is available vi

Re: complexity of repeated use of m4_append

2008-07-12 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bruno Haible on 7/12/2008 6:44 PM: | Hi Eric, | |> I've added |> documentation to the autoconf manual to mention the algorithmic speed being |> dependent on the quality of the underlying m4 implementation, and recommending |> m4_append ov

Re: module request: longlong

2008-07-12 Thread Sam Steingold
Hello? is anyone there? do you only talk to each other? > * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-03 10:53:43 -0400]: > > longlong.m4 is available via many modules, but not alone. > it would be nice if a longlong module were availbale. > offering one single file: longlong.m4 > > thanks. >

Re: complexity of repeated use of m4_append

2008-07-12 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Eric, > I've added > documentation to the autoconf manual to mention the algorithmic speed being > dependent on the quality of the underlying m4 implementation, and > recommending > m4_append over m4_append_uniq when duplicates can be tolerated. Thanks for doing that. > But I'm hoping tha

Re: [patch 1/4] Rename isnand.h to isnand-nolibm.h, similarly for isnanf.h.

2008-07-12 Thread Bruno Haible
> With those changes, I pushed this to the repository. At a second glance, I could see a small improvement: When, say, the system's isnsn(double) works and is in libc, but isnan(long double) does not work and thus needs the replacement, the gnulib isnan will use entirely replaced and therefore doe

Re: [patch 1/4] Rename isnand.h to isnand-nolibm.h, similarly for isnanf.h.

2008-07-12 Thread Ben Pfaff
Thanks for the review, Bruno. Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I broke up the monolithic >> patch into four smaller patches as you requested. > > Thanks a lot; it is much easier to review this way. > > Part 1 is perfect (just an extraneous space in the ChangeLog entry). I couldn't spo