Changes to fdlibm code should be review on core-libs-dev rather than
build-dev.
However, given the nature of the code, I am not inclined to approach
changes to fdlibm to work around new C compiler warnings.
-Joe
On 10/16/2014 6:08 PM, David Chase wrote:
I am more competent at modifying FP source code than I am at tinkering with
flags in our build system.
If someone else is solving the problem, they might choose what works best for
them, I am glad if that happens.
But till something happens, I am (very) build-impaired, or I can just make all
my changes to a downrev
version of the source and hope that the patches apply.
David
On 2014-10-16, at 6:20 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
David,
I think it is more appropriate to look to compile fdlibm with a different set
of flags, as has been done in at least previous iterations of the build system.
Thanks,
-Joe
On 10/16/2014 2:37 PM, David Chase wrote:
Rhetorical question, actually — someone clearly did.
Someone also did not test it with gcc 4.8.recent on Ubuntu 14 or Clang.current
on Mavericks.
One of the offending directories is fdlibm, and I have experience with that, so
since I can’t
get anything else done, I will see about cleaning up that code.
David
