<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Robert
Haas<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com" target="_blank">robertmhaas@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
class="HOEnZb"><divclass="h5">On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Fabien COELHO <<a
href="mailto:coelho@cri.ensmp.fr">coelho@cri.ensmp.fr</a>>wrote:<br /> >> I had a look at this patch. This
patchadds some text below a table<br /> >> of functions. Immediately above that table, there is this existing<br
/>>> language:<br /> >><br /> >> The functions working with <type>double
precision</type>data are mostly<br /> >> implemented on top of the host system's C library; accuracy and
behavior<br/> >> in<br /> >> boundary cases can therefore vary depending on the host system.<br />
>><br/> >> This seems to me to substantially duplicate the information added by the<br /> >>
patch.<br/> ><br /> > I would rather say that it explicites the potential issues. Taking that into<br /> >
account,maybe the part about floating point could be moved up after the<br /> > above sentence, or the above
sentencemoved down as an introduction, with<br /> > some pruning so that it fits in?<br /><br
/></div></div>Possibly. If anyone still cares about this patch, then they should<br /> try revising it along those
linesand submit an updated version. If<br /> no one is excited enough about this to do that, we should just flag<br />
thisas rejected and move on. Since this patch has been kicking<br /> around since August, my reading is nobody's very
excitedabout it, but<br /> maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation.</blockquote></div><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Let'smove on then, marked as rejected.<br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature">Michael<br
/></div></div></div>
