Subject: Re: replacement for bc(1), dc(1), diff(1), and diff(3)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/25/2005 17:42:10
In article <email@example.com>,
Phil Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Friday 25 March 2005 12:05, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>> There has already been some private discussion about replacing bc/
>> dc. I do not know the heritage of the OpenBSD versions, but Anders
>> Magnussen was looking at the now-freed-up old AT&T versions. I'll
>> let him elaborate further.
>The OpenBSD versions started with the old AT&T versions. The math library is
>a slightly modified version of the AT&T version. The AT&T version that was
>recently made free still contains a bug that was documented in the paper:
>Ingo Dittmer, ACM Signum, April 1993, page 8-11.
>The AT&T dc was modified by the OpenBSD people to now use the math routines
>found in the openssl library (crypto/bn). This fixed the bug listed above,
>but the performance of OpenBSD bc/dc is still not as good as GNU bc for most
>cases as shown in a different post on this thread. In fact, there still are
>places where GNU bc can do computations that OpenBSD dc can't.
>I still believe that NetBSD shouldn't replace a GNU tool with an inferior tool
>just to get rid of the GPL.
Phil, you said that you would dual-license bc, and import that... This was a
while ago. What happened?