From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 10971 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2021 21:01:59 -0000
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 Aug 2021 21:01:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 8081 invoked by uid 550); 15 Aug 2021 21:01:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 8057 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2021 21:01:56 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nexgo.de;
	s=vfde-smtpout-mb-15sep; t=1629061304;
	bh=Gj+m6Ugtk5rFH2SfWOvXb5ogYwAiNAgFU1wMMgMc1tk=;
	h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date;
	b=TXX8A/jS2OpHKafIUzD22St+B4dM8fzsRi/XXx3Py7v73AsOhZHxNhVguXMpJhs7Y
	 Ef5FAwId2eRUKY/Wj3jjHFlzw/bWbaNPVXP25ToBtutGAliMq7m98aHenLxDh6lqGE
	 gcyEF45t1xfzhm7EDaHU64qkrzxy6GKC0oCAAjmg=
Message-ID: <24DD1FF8BAC240228EB53467118A6F90@H270>
From: "Stefan Kanthak" <stefan.kanthak@nexgo.de>
To: "Rich Felker" <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: "Szabolcs Nagy" <nsz@port70.net>,
	<musl@lists.openwall.com>
References: <0C6AAAD55DA44C6189B2FF4F5FB2C3E7@H270> <20210810213455.GB37904@port70.net> <E2423D1F1F3848848AEA933048174858@H270> <20210814234612.GH37904@port70.net> <367A4018B58A4E308E2A95404362CBFB@H270> <20210815145614.GI37904@port70.net> <1F3569BD7D6E45889B7518DC9BE5004B@H270> <20210815154843.GH13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <FC3AE92153FD428B82DC324E6F64842A@H270> <20210815164903.GJ13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20210815164903.GJ13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 22:52:24 +0200
Organization: Me, myself & IT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.24158
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate-size: 803
X-purgate-ID: 155817::1629061304-00000B26-AF0D97DE/0/0
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH #2] Properly simplified nextafter()

Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> I really have better things to be doing than putting up with repeated
> toxic interactions for the sake of a supposed miniscule improvement in
> something nobody has identified as having any problem to begin with.

Nobody as in "Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu bauen"?
Or just nobody EXCEPT ME bothered to take a look at the code of your
nextafter() and noticed its performance deficit (at least on AMD64
and i386)?

JFTR: your implementation is NON-COMPLIANT!
      I recommend to read the ISO C standard and follow it by the word.

> If you want to engage constructively, you're welcome to. This is not
> it.

You are most obviously NOT interested in performance improvement, or
just to stubborn: choose what you like better.

Stefan