On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon <
p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> When a unix signal is received, ecl cl:signals a simple-error with:
>
> unixint.d:370:FEerror("Serious signal ~D caught.", 1,
> signal_code);
>
> In this it would be better if a specific cond
When a unix signal is received, ecl cl:signals a simple-error with:
unixint.d:370:FEerror("Serious signal ~D caught.", 1,
signal_code);
In this it would be better if a specific condition was signaled
instead, so that applications could more easily handle the signal.
For example:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Gavrilov wrote:
> Actually, apart from the issue of merging conflicts, I'm also a bit
> concerned about compiler compatibility since I only tested on one
> setup: gcc + x86_64.
I just committed the raw patches you submitted. I will now add my own checks
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Raymond Toy wrote:
> Although it seems the spec allows this, ecl produces an answer that only
> has single-float accuracy for (expt 2 #c(-2d0 -1d0)). I think the
> issues arises because the result is computed as (exp (* #c(-2d0 -1d0)
> (log 2))). That (log 2) gi
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Gavrilov wrote:
> Committing and running test builds would be a
> good way to find out if there are any unexpected issues.
Ok, then should I commit just the patch you sent me? Does it include
everything?
> Note that
> since I don't understand how the
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
wrote:
> I can wait until you fix the names. Or would you rather want me to include
> it, so that your contribution does not break while I work on the next
> release?
Actually, apart from the issue of merging conflicts, I'm also a bit
conce
