Hello.
Andrew Josey wrote in <78428076-8264-43a8-bee9-cb09931a4...@opengroup.org>:
|> On 10 Aug 2018, at 14:46, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> Stephane Chazelas wrote in <20180810091752.iyenblg7ik737inn@chaz.gmail.c\
|> om>:
|>|2018-08-08 19:19:56 -0500, Eric Blake:
|>|> (I wish I could point
> I think your paper's example should NOT use abs(), but instead some
> other function (whether you merely rename your existing example to
> 'myabs', or pick a different function which DOES have well-defined errno
> semantics right now), precisely because abs() does NOT currently have
>
Stephane Chazelas wrote in <20180810091752.iyenblg7ik737...@chaz.gmail.com>:
|2018-08-08 19:19:56 -0500, Eric Blake:
|> (I wish I could point you to mailing list archives, but
|> https://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ points to gmane, which \
|> is no
|> longer functional, and I don't
2018-08-08 19:19:56 -0500, Eric Blake:
> (I wish I could point you to mailing list archives, but
> https://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ points to gmane, which is no
> longer functional, and I don't know of any other web archival visiting the
> Austin list)
Note that while the gmane web
On 08/08/2018 07:19 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
We've just had a discussion on whether standard-compliant abs() (which
is currently undefined on INT_MIN) should be permitted and/or required
to have well-defined behavior
I failed to provide a summary to my thoughts:
I think your paper's example
On 08/08/2018 05:24 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v=forums=MTEwODAzNzI2MjM1OTc0MjE3MjkBMDIyMjg0NDY2NTc4NzYyMDQzODYBX1RlYjRCNjREQUFKATAuMQFpc29jcHAub3JnAXYy=0
Comments are welcome, particularly on how best to offer POSIX functions
in a form both binary compatible
