[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: working with "good enough" functions
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: working with "good enough" functions |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:51:11 +0100 |
Mike Frysinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> the gnulib implementations of POSIX functions are pretty damn complete. for
> most of my uses though, they're *too* complete :).
>
> for example, current gnulib will often enable printf functions on modern
> systems (such as Linux w/glibc 2.9). this is because extended floating point
> support breaks from time to time. in my case, my system C library has broken
> handling of long doubles. however, i rarely use floating point code in
> projects i work on, so the system C library could have completely hosed
> support and i still wouldnt care. thus using the replacement versions really
> only results in bloat.
>
> is there a standard way for addressing this ? or should i cheat and set the
> vars to yes before calling gl_{EARLY,INIT} ? if i add a line like this:
> gl_cv_func_printf_infinite_long_double=yes
Yes, that (seeding the cache) is the recommended approach.
> then the tests complete as i'd like ... the printf() implementation comes from
> the system C library rather than gnulib.
> -mike
- working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/04
- Re: working with "good enough" functions,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/05
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/05
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Paul Eggert, 2009/01/08
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Eric Blake, 2009/01/08
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/08
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Simon Josefsson, 2009/01/08
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/08
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/17
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/18
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Simon Josefsson, 2009/01/18