Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> To clarify this again: *no* features of C99 were used. The C99 specs were
> only used as a guideline to what behavior we want of complex math
> functions, and I wrote tests for this, and marked failing ones as skipped.
Got it.
> However, it turned out that different test
Hi,
Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:25:11 +0200, Christian Heimes wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
>> The current trunk has 14 failures on windows (with mingw). 12 of them
>> are related to C99 (see ticket 869). Can the people involved in recent
>> changes to complex functions take a look at it ? I think this
Charles R Harris wrote:
> I believe C99 was used as a guide to how complex corner cases involving
> +/-0, +/-inf, etc. should behave. However, it doesn't look possible to make
> that behaviour portable without a lot of work and it probably isn't worth
> the trouble. At the moment the failing tests
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Cournapeau wrote:
> > The current trunk has 14 failures on windows (with mingw). 12 of them
> > are related to C99 (see ticket 869). Can the people involved in recent
> > changes to complex functions take a look a
David Cournapeau wrote:
> The current trunk has 14 failures on windows (with mingw). 12 of them
> are related to C99 (see ticket 869). Can the people involved in recent
> changes to complex functions take a look at it ? I think this is high
> priority for 1.2.0
I'm asking just out of curiosity. Wh
Hi,
The current trunk has 14 failures on windows (with mingw). 12 of them
are related to C99 (see ticket 869). Can the people involved in recent
changes to complex functions take a look at it ? I think this is high
priority for 1.2.0
thanks,
David
___
