Subject: Re: What's the issue with vs. "ntpd"?
To: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 07/16/2003 19:20:27
On 7/16/03 6:57 PM, "Simon Burge" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Fred,
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>> I'm on a mission to get NetBSD's changes to ntpd merged into the main
>> distribution, and I'm finally starting to get a handle on it. There is
>> this one thing about which I have no clue. You elided all possibility
>> of including <ieeefp.h> with this commit message:
>> date: 2000/05/03 06:08:45; author: simonb; state: Exp; lines: +12 -0
>> Fix the <ieeefp.h> problem a different way - nothing actually uses the
>> contents of that header (the only file that includes it compiles to the
>> same object code on multiple architectures with or without including
>> <ieeefp.h>), so remove all references to it.
>> Fix sent to NTP maintainers - they will probably implement this change
>> after the immenient 4.1.0 release, but don't want to change it so close
>> Do you, or does anyone, remember what the problem was, or what the
>> other way of fixing it was? It's still included in ntp_utils.c in
>> ntp-dev, but there are other changes to the way floating point is used
>> in that file that may (or may not) make it irrelevant. Will someone
>> please enlighten me?
> I _think_ that the problem is that vax doesn't have an <ieeefp.h> since
> it doesn't do IEEE FP. My memory is hazy on this though...
That is precisely the problem.
Matt Thomas email: email@example.com
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.