From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: isnan, isinf in ldc; Was: Re: Release imminent Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:03:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20160803170341.GA5010@jasmine> References: <87zip9pex1.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8gwgnrs.fsf@gnu.org> <20160802084640.GA2491@solar> <20160803095110.3e5cf1bc@scratchpost.org> <20160803091234.GA3172@solar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50418) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUzaJ-0006KI-DH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:04:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUzaF-0001cX-FB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:03:59 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:57365) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bUzaC-0001W0-Fg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:03:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160803091234.GA3172@solar> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > Hi Danny, > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:51:10AM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > > ldc fails because they do > > ::isnan > > which is a bad idea if isnan is a C macro (which it usually isn't - but hey O_o). I've substituted > > isnan > > for it and this part then compiles fine. > > This fix is not safe in general because if there's a method called isnan in scope, it will use that. In the ldc case, they've named the method "isNan" - so it's fine. > > did you forget to add a patch? > > Anyway, they made a release 1.0.0. Maybe it would be preferable to try > an update of the package first, in case the problem is already solved > on their side? I prefer this approach. Always try to take upstream's solution :)