From: Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...> - 2006-09-28 18:47:36
|
Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote: > Daniel J Sebald wrote: >=20 >=20 >>Probably so. If this is the most up-to-date documentation: >=20 >=20 >>http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man3= /lgamma.3.html=20 >=20 >=20 >>there is no mention of a variable signgam. =20 >=20 >=20 > And that's a solid bug in any OS math library that purports to implemen= t=20 > C99 or any recent level of Unix standard compliance. lgamma() is=20 > required to be there, and it's equally required to have a signgam to go= =20 > with it. >=20 > > So perhaps it has no meaning anymore for Apple's platform. >=20 > That's not Appple's decision to make. >=20 > > Why they would still have the variable in >=20 >>the library if that were the case, I'm not sure. >=20 >=20 > They must have it, and they must use it as defined in all applicable=20 > standards. Well, thanks for pointing out the standard, didn't know there was a C99 s= tandard. However, if this is the standard documentation at: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/standards under WG14 N1124 (it's a PDF file), then I don't immediately see any indi= cation that lgamma() requires there be an associated signgam variable. I= n fact, there is no such signgam in the document anywhere. The documenta= tion appears just as listed on the apple websight. There isn't even a gamma() function in C99. I'm guessing the concept is = to move away from signgam, I believe, for which the non-threadedness may = have played a factor in their decision. So, that first patch I have on SourceForge is the C99 version (just tgamm= a or lgamma). The second patch is the "alright, we'll be nice to all you= behind the curve computer users out there" (which is probably somewhere = near 99.73%) version. Dan |