[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: working with "good enough" functions
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: working with "good enough" functions |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:45:30 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Monday 05 January 2009 05:24:17 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> That, or --avoid if the modules are brought in just because of
> dependencies.
i dont have a problem with the printf module. i explicitly pulled in the
printf-posix module because i want a posix implementation on crappy systems.
but i dont care if said systems have broken floating point implementations
since i dont use floating point in my code.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- working with "good enough" functions, Mike Frysinger, 2009/01/04
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Jim Meyering, 2009/01/04
- Re: working with "good enough" functions, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/05
- Re: working with "good enough" functions,
Mike Frysinger <=
- 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