Broken `cexp ()' replacement

Broken `cexp ()' replacement

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Han-Wen: The replacement `cexp ()' you added recently in `numbers.c'
seems to be somehow broken.  Here, on a system where `HAVE_CEXP' was
undefined (I had forgotten to re-run `configure', etc.), it led to the
failure of the 4 tests around `numbers.test':249.

I don't know how to fix it, though, so help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Broken `cexp ()' replacement

[Kevin Ryde]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> replacement `cexp ()'

I think I have to put my hand up for some of the blame there.  I added
those uses of cexp and friends, but made the rash assumption that if
"complex double" exists then the functions do.

My intention (never acted on) was to simply further restrict the use of
those funcs.  Eg. in scm_exp test HAVE_CEXP as well as
HAVE_COMPLEX_DOUBLE.  (Or arrange for configure not to even attempt
HAVE_CEXP unless have complex double, then make it the single test
HAVE_CEXP.)

There's got to be fallback code for when complex double doesn't exist at
all, so may as well use that when the necessary func isn't there,
instead of writing replacement cexp() etc (such replacements basically
duplicating the double-only code).


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel