[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PATCH] SEQ BUG
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
[PATCH] SEQ BUG |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:10:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061116) |
John Cowan wrote:
> Pádraig Brady scripsit:
>
>> The issue and work around are documented in the info page,
>> but why don't we do the suggestion automatically in code
>> (using the precision that is automatically worked out already)?
>
> That implies using either a fixed-point or a decimal-based floating-point
> package. GNU gmp seems to be the obvious candidate.
Yes you could use gmp, but for normal uses of `seq`
you could just use appropriate comparisons?
How about the following patch, and we can also
remove the workaround info from the docs.
Pádraig.
--- seq.orig.c 2007-06-08 07:50:24.000000000 +0000
+++ seq.c 2007-06-08 09:05:23.000000000 +0000
@@ -357,6 +357,10 @@
}
}
+ /* perhaps can use nextafterl? */
+ #define PRECISION 1.0E-15
+ last.value += step.value + (step.value>0?-PRECISION:PRECISION);
+
if (format_str != NULL && equal_width)
{
error (0, 0, _("\
- SEQ BUG, Patrick Amstutz, 2007/06/07
- Re: SEQ BUG, Micah Cowan, 2007/06/07
- Re: SEQ BUG, John Cowan, 2007/06/07
- [PATCH] SEQ BUG,
Pádraig Brady <=
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/08
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/08
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/08
- [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/13
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Paul Eggert, 2007/06/13
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/13
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/19
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Paul Eggert, 2007/06/19
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/20
- Re: [PATCH] SEQ BUG, Pádraig Brady, 2007/06/20