[illumos-Developer] Review for 166 CR6901979 error in xdr_float.c not fixed

[Jason King]

Sorry, last week got _very_ busy with work (culminating in a 32-hour
weekend, so I've been brain dead most of this week).  I'll try to get
to it tonight.


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
>  Please send me a new webrev.
>
> I'd like the Reviewed by: lines in your hg export to reflect your actual
> reviewers, and a copy of your nightly build's mail_msg file.
>
>    - Garrett
>
> On 03/21/11 08:42 PM, Jason King wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Garrett D'Amore<garrett at damore.org>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 20:34 -0500, Jason King wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok.. after a few unrelated issues with the sparc build, this tests out
>>>> correctly (using data generated from s10 sparc) and also includes a
>>>> few minor cstyle cleanups in the existing code:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.illumos.org/view/x2ewa65v/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Developer mailing list
>>>> Developer at lists.illumos.org
>>>> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
>>>
>>> xdr.h: line 34.  I don't know who Jason Knig is, but its awful nice of
>>> him to donate his code to us. ;-)
>>
>> Doh!
>>
>>> xdr_float.c: do you want to #ifdef the xdr_float_portable?  I.e. not
>>> include it if we have a builtin optimized version?
>>
>> I'd need to go back and look (since it's been a while since I touched
>> this), but ISTR that there was a desire for allowing
>> testing/interoperability, though my feelings are if you're trying to
>> deal with floating point across platforms, programmator emptor (i.e.
>> don't build the portable version on optimized platforms).
>>
>> Unless someone chimes up in the next day or two, I'll spin a new
>> webrev ~Wed with it #ifdef'd out.
>>
>> I will also note there is the standing issue of x86 vs sparc
>> representation of +/-NaN, however that exists independent of this
>> code, and this does not attempt to wade into that nightmare.
>>
>>> Otherwise it looks reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>        - Garrett
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Developer mailing list
>> Developer at lists.illumos.org
>> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
>