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

[Jason King]

Aside from you, Gordon reviewed it previously, but not the latest
tweaks.  Not sure if that counts, or if he might perhaps be able to
look again.

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
>