Hi,
On 03/01/2013 03:54 PM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
How about this patch then? As I said, I have code in need of
constants lined up and Edward likely also wants to take advantage of
them in some of his code.
this seems straightforward enough to go in even at this late stage.
Thanks,
Paolo.
How about this patch then? As I said, I have code in need of
constants lined up and Edward likely also wants to take advantage of
them in some of his code.
Index: include/Makefile.am
===
--- include/Makefile.am (revision 196362)
+++
On 03/01/2013 05:15 AM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
Not seeing it.
Say for:
#include
// A class for math constants.
template
struct __math_constants
{
// Constant @f$ \pi @f$.
static constexpr _RealType __pi
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
> Not seeing it.
>
> Say for:
>
> #include
>
> // A class for math constants.
> template
> struct __math_constants
> {
> // Constant @f$ \pi @f$.
> static constexpr _RealType __pie =
> 3.141592653589793238462643
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Daniel Krügler
wrote:
> 2013/2/21 Benjamin De Kosnik :
>>
>>> > How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
>>> > constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
>>> > constants that are available in in Unix.
>>
>> then this should r
2013/2/21 Benjamin De Kosnik :
>
>> > How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
>> > constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
>> > constants that are available in in Unix.
>
> then this should really be
>
> ext/cmath
>
>>
>> 1) In this case I miss the corres
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 17:14 +, Alec Teal wrote:
> > On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > > How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
> > > constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
> > >
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 17:14 +, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
> > constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
> > constants that are available in in Unix.
> >
> > What other constant
On 02/21/13, Alec Teal wrote:
On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
> constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
> constants that are available in in Unix.
>
> What other constants to add?
Pi/3
ln(3)
ln(10) (fo
> > How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
> > constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
> > constants that are available in in Unix.
then this should really be
ext/cmath
>
> 1) In this case I miss the corresponding variable definitions, because
> yo
On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
constants that are available in in Unix.
What other constants to add?
Pi/3
ln(3)
ln(10) (for base conversions)
sqrt(3)
sqrt(5)
sqr
2013/2/21 Ulrich Drepper :
> How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
> constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
> constants that are available in in Unix.
1) In this case I miss the corresponding variable definitions, because
you violate the ODR, when you
How about the attached file as a start for . I used the
constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
constants that are available in in Unix.
What other constants to add?
math
Description: Binary data
13 matches
Mail list logo
