[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
