From @oko| @end|ng |rom |n@@-tou|ou@e@|r  Fri Dec 13 17:35:54 2019
From: @oko| @end|ng |rom |n@@-tou|ou@e@|r (Serguei Sokol)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:35:54 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Build failure on powerpc64
In-Reply-To: <CANA0HMansuv519fGMJy-Z+rEAgenAs1hr09eYGeV7HFNfZHTHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANA0HMYoYiHApzRfswTioi352ELYS4bJwvrW+=su6Mtanq84RQ-6733@mail.gmail.com>
 <24051.27320.342490.48043@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <CANA0HMansuv519fGMJy-Z+rEAgenAs1hr09eYGeV7HFNfZHTHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7a28ecfa-7f2a-167f-ce83-f817f3991d78@insa-toulouse.fr>

Le 13/12/2019 ? 17:06, Tom Callaway a ?crit?:
> arithmetic.c:
>     static LDOUBLE q_1_eps = 1 / LDBL_EPSILON;
Just a thought: can it be that it's "1" which is at the origin of 
compiler complaint?
In this case, would the syntax "1.L" be sufficient to keep it calm?

Serguei.



[Rd] Build failure on powerpc64
Serguei Sokol