At Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:59:14 -0700, Eugene Loh wrote: > Anyhow, I'm looking for guidance as to what you'd support in > putbacks. Do you favor the "volatile" approach? Are you open to > the dummy() function?
I think the best approach would be to use a macro, so the definition could be changed as necessary -- this is what we do for avoiding excess precision on x86, see the definition of GSL_COERCE_DBL(x) in acconfig.h for example. It would make sense to have a different macro for forcing an evaluation, maybe GSL_PROTECT_DBL(x) or something like that. Previously I didn't do anything systematic as I only encountered a few problems where volatile was needed. -- Brian Gough _______________________________________________ Bug-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gsl
