--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-16 09:51
---
By invalid I meant that I had the time to go through Comment #3 again and found
after all safe enough what we have now. Let's delay any tweaks, which can cause
unexpected regressions on exotic targets, to post-
--- Comment #8 from 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2009-12-16 03:01 ---
Subject: Re: Weirdness with numeric_limits in special
functions
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-15 17:17
> ---
> Ok, let's close th
--- Comment #7 from 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2009-12-16 02:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=19318)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19318&action=view)
This is a better implementation that avoids the wierdness.
This attachment is not patchified yet.
This implementati
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-15 17:17
---
Ok, let's close this as invalid.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-08-03 20:14
---
Any news, Ed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34419
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-04 15:46
---
Any news on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34419
--- Comment #3 from 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2008-10-05 01:33 ---
Subject: Re: Weirdness with numeric_limits in special
functions
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-03 10:54
> ---
> Any news Ed?
>
>
>
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-03 10:54
---
Any news Ed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34419
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 15:52 ---
Confirmed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
