On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote:
obsolete targets), then using AC_C_LONG_DOUBLE is not recommended. Part of the problem was that the interface provided by AC_C_LONG_DOUBLE defines HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE, which is a confusing macro name - there are platforms that do indeed have 'long double', but where it is not wider than 'double' - should HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE be defined or not?
This is not a problem since according to previously existing documentation the answer would clearly be `no'.
It is interesting to me that legacy programming form has been to always use the largest type name available which offers the size you need rather than the smallest type name which provides the same size. So many programmers have used 'long' when they should really have used 'int'. When these applications are compiled for a larger architecture, the sizes get extended even if the application has no need for it.
If 'long double' provides no more range than 'double' then there is no benefit to using it.
Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
