From tc@||@w@ @end|ng |rom redh@t@com  Fri Dec 13 19:39:10 2019
From: tc@||@w@ @end|ng |rom redh@t@com (Tom Callaway)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:39:10 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Build failure on powerpc64
In-Reply-To: <7a28ecfa-7f2a-167f-ce83-f817f3991d78@insa-toulouse.fr>
References: <CANA0HMYoYiHApzRfswTioi352ELYS4bJwvrW+=su6Mtanq84RQ-6733@mail.gmail.com>
 <24051.27320.342490.48043@stat.math.ethz.ch>
 <CANA0HMansuv519fGMJy-Z+rEAgenAs1hr09eYGeV7HFNfZHTHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a28ecfa-7f2a-167f-ce83-f817f3991d78@insa-toulouse.fr>
Message-ID: <CANA0HMbkUbS29vaDwX8xhtaRB6qLvN00AF39wZdtDY28D-uPkA@mail.gmail.com>

No, that does not change the issue:

arithmetic.c:180:26: error: initializer element is not constant
  180 | static LDOUBLE q_1_eps = 1.L / LDBL_EPSILON;

Tom

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:56 AM Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] Build failure on powerpc64
Tom Callaway