This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:41:11PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > I've checked the test now in, heavily modified. It now does not only > check that the macros are consistent, it also checks the semantics. I > wanted to do this for a long time. > > Please let me know whether you see any problems, especially when > compiling with small machines (the preprocessor output is blown up > significantly). Does it pass for you? It does not pass for me with todays CVS gcc (and similarly with gcc-2.96-72 RH) nor with gcc 2.95.2: with 2.95.2 all functions get called 111 times, with 2.97 (and 2.96-72) long double is called 113 times, the rest 111 times. Jakub
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |