[no subject]

Just to set the record straight: this was not a gcc 2.96 problem it
tuned out that most linux systems were not recognized as IEEE systems
and as a consequence some slightly buggy code was used. THe
configuration has been corrected so that w enow also look for
ieee754,h header files as replacement to ieeefp.h.

I read this as "configure has been fixed to pull in the right header" and 
the bug seems to be resolved.
So to me it looks like this is no longer a good reason to disallow all gcc 
2.96 versions.  Please tell me if I'm wrong here ;) I might be missing 

> > > http://maths.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/devel/01c/0929.html
> > 
> > This one seems to say that gnumeric pulled in a 2.5 year old function from 
> > R (whatever R is) that has been fixed in R already.
> We did pull a function from R (a free replacement for S) 2 years
> ago.  However, this is numeric code it does not change or rot
> quickly.  There have not been updates.

Again, quoting from a reply :

0.64 is 2.5 years old! Several things have been fixed since then,
including at least one really bad bug in qbeta(). You might want to
track the development of R a bit closer (&maybe note that R's math
library can now be compiled a a standalone dynlib).

It seems to me that in this case there have been changes to the exact 
function the error has been reported in, so it looks like it's worthwhile 
to check out.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

> We are not pointing fingers at redhat here.  Bug reports came in of
> gnumeric producing incorrect numbers.  One of the developers managed
> to replicate it, but mysteryously it worked for the rest of us.  He
> eventually tracked it to a miscompilation due to different
> interpretation of double in the 2.96 compiler in his mandrake
> distro.  Tracking why a number is off by a bit is a pain in the
> butt.

So, if I understand it correctly, it's only reproducable by mandrake's 
2.96 gcc ? Or are there also problems with versions of redhat's gcc 2.96 ? 

In any case, it seems a little harsh to just disallow all versions of gcc 
2.96.  There must be some way to discern between the few 2.96's that cause 
bad compiles and the many that don't.

BTW, I forgot to say thanks for Gnumeric.  It's one of the reasons I 
haven't been forced to install Windows on my work machine yet ;)



The Dave/Dina Project : future TV today ! - http://davedina.apestaart.org/
<-*-                      -*->
Is there a voice unkind
in the back of your mind
saying "maybe you didn't know him at all"
<-*- thomas apestaart org -*->
URGent, the best radio on the Internet - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.rug.ac.be/

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]