I think we always return true. Everything is true of the empty set. Bill.
2009/8/2 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>: > > I've fixed the current mpf_eq error , the only question that remains is what > to do in the case when nbits=0 > ie are the top 0 bits of two mpf's equal ? do we always return true ? even > when the two mpf are complete differnent signs/sizes etc > > Jason > > On Friday 17 July 2009 05:59:51 Bill Hart wrote: >> If we replaced it with MPFR we'd be stuck at the current version, as >> they are changing license. >> >> There are also lots of projects out there which currently use GMP and >> MPFR. It would be a minor problem to include MPFR in MPIR because of >> symbol clashes. I'm not really in favour of the idea. Besides that >> floating point arithmetic is not really my domain. The first time I >> ever knowingly used MPFR was when I ported that code to C for Kristin. >> >> Bill. >> >> 2009/7/17 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>: >> > I hear there is a another mpf error , we should fix this. It's looks like >> > it's been in the code since the year dot . Look at all the errors in >> > GMP/MPIR from the last two/three years , most are compiler/configure or >> > mpf errors. I would vote to get rid of the mpf layer , but we have to >> > keep it for backward compatibility ;( , How about replacing it with mpfr >> > and add a wrapper for the three and half people who use the mpf layer. >> > >> > Jason >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
