search for: thereji

...>> Dan, >> Thank you for the quick and throughout reply. First paragraph pretty >> much sums it up. Unless there is more will to guaranty (or provide >> under flag) stricter version of IEEE adherence, I doubt much can be done. >> So all of you with picky customers out thereJIs there anyone else that >> would be concerned about this problem in any of it potential forms? > > I have the opposite problem. I have customers who call libm functions > with constants (or their LLVM intrinsic equivalents) are get very angry > if they don't get constant folde...

On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Dan, > > Thank you for the quick and throughout reply. First paragraph pretty much sums it up. Unless there is more will to guaranty (or provide under flag) stricter version of IEEE adherence, I doubt much can be done. > > So all of you with picky customers out there J Is there anyone

...gt;>> Thank you for the quick and throughout reply. First paragraph pretty >>> much sums it up. Unless there is more will to guaranty (or provide >>> under flag) stricter version of IEEE adherence, I doubt much can be done. >>> So all of you with picky customers out thereJIs there anyone else that >>> >>> would be concerned about this problem in any of it potential forms? >>> >> >> I have the opposite problem. I have customers who call libm functions >> with constants (or their LLVM intrinsic equivalents) are get very angry...