[Bug c/14621] libm tan failure for pi/2 argument

["dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-18 15:00 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I was going to let you folks have the last word as any further dialog was worthless
> however your comments on C99 and Harbison & Steele were so erroneous I was forced
> to respond.
> 
> 
> Secondly, Harbison & Steele is just about the only reliable indendent source of standards
> available at a reasonable cost.  When ANSI was the source I did get their standards many
> years ago but later it became too expensive.
It's 18 bucks.
>  What is and isn't C99 is clearly noted in the
> book, but then you have obviously never read it.
>
Probably true. We read the standards when implementing compilers, since that is what me must follow, 
not random books.
 
> Thirdly, your last note indicates overwhelming position of self importance and the basic
> statement "my way or no way."  As an aside, from what I have read of the C99 standards
> they seem reasonable and should be implemented.  Your web site shows you are a little
> slow to keep up.

Feel free to send patches, rather than complain.

> 
> Lastly, please no more prattle about realities of floating point and value exactitude.
> I have been writting mathematical software since 1959 and I have a certain degree of
> familiarity with the technicalities of floating point arithmetic.

This may be true, but it is of no relevance.  It's also probably not a game you want to play with compiler 
people. some of them have been around a lot longer than you have.

> 
> Lastly, you said I should contact the group involved with the "libc" library.

This is correct.
>   Well, for
> one thing tan is in libm and secondly I cannot find the place in your web site (nor
> any other) that deals with either libc or libm problems.

the libc group is responsible for the standard c library, which includes libm in your case.
We don't produce libc, or libm, which is why you won't find them on our website.

The libc group can be found at http://sources.redhat.com/glibc/

I would suggest you not be so arrogant in dealing with them, and maybe you will get a better response.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14621