Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 22:52:24 +0200
From: "Stefan Kanthak" <>
To: "Rich Felker" <>
Cc: "Szabolcs Nagy" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH #2] Properly simplified nextafter()

Rich Felker <> 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.


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.