Hi Carsten,
Carsten Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while investigating some problems with a unit test for the rewritten
> byte order functions (details see
> https://opensg.vrsource.org/trac/ticket/22), I found some interesting
> things wrt Real128.
> First of all on my linux box sizeof(Real128) == sizeof(long double) ==
> 12 (not 16 as the name suggests). And the current byte order function
> osghtondd (which I copied) happily swaps the position of 16 bytes, so I
> guess this code was not too heavily stressed ;)
Doesn't look like it.
> Do we actually need Real128 (a grep over svn trunk shows they are used
> nowhere outside the base dir) ? Or maybe we should rename them to Real96 ?
Hm. I really though they were 128 bit, but if they're not, and they're
differing between platforms, I would probably take them out.
Thanks
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Opensg-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
