On 08/04/2011 09:09 PM, Joe Darcy wrote: > Mike Duigou wrote: >> Looks good to me. >> >> I did wonder if we have a policy for tracking fdlibm updates. > > To a first approximation (and even a second approximation), fdlibm > doesn't have updates any more any hasn't for many years. The changes in > in 5.3 were to fix a few bugs I and others had discovered circa 2004. [1]
That's right. We used fdlibm in libgcj too, and it is very solid and reliable code. The only problems we ever had were some non-portable assumptions that were fairly easy to fix. Maybe fdlibm will never now be updated. Andrew.
