Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 22:52:24 +0200 From: "Stefan Kanthak" <stefan.kanthak@...go.de> To: "Rich Felker" <dalias@...c.org> Cc: "Szabolcs Nagy" <nsz@...t70.net>, <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH #2] Properly simplified nextafter() Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > I really have better things to be doing than putting up with repeated > toxic interactions for the sake of a supposed miniscule improvement in > something nobody has identified as having any problem to begin with. Nobody as in "Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu bauen"? Or just nobody EXCEPT ME bothered to take a look at the code of your nextafter() and noticed its performance deficit (at least on AMD64 and i386)? JFTR: your implementation is NON-COMPLIANT! I recommend to read the ISO C standard and follow it by the word. > If you want to engage constructively, you're welcome to. This is not > it. You are most obviously NOT interested in performance improvement, or just to stubborn: choose what you like better. Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.