[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Freeze exception for fplll



Hello,

I'd like a freeze exception for fplll_2.1.6+20071129-2.dsc. It fixes a build failure on architectures lacking long doubles. Debdiff attached.

	-Tim Abbott
diff -u fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/changelog fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/changelog
--- fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/changelog
+++ fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+fplll (2.1.6+20071129-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * Fix remaining uses of ldexpl to use DPE_LDEXPL, which falls back to
+    ldexp if ldexpl isn't available.  Thanks to Thiemo Seufer. (Closes:
+    #495465)
+
+ -- Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>  Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:22:35 -0400
+
 fplll (2.1.6+20071129-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Initial release (Closes: #480081).
diff -u fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/patches/series fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/patches/series
--- fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/patches/series
+++ fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/patches/series
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
+ldexpl-portability.patch
 gcc-4.3-fixes.patch
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- fplll-2.1.6+20071129.orig/debian/patches/ldexpl-portability.patch
+++ fplll-2.1.6+20071129/debian/patches/ldexpl-portability.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+Index: fplll-2.1.6+20071129/src/dpe.h
+===================================================================
+--- fplll-2.1.6+20071129.orig/src/dpe.h	2008-08-17 13:22:16.000000000 -0400
++++ fplll-2.1.6+20071129/src/dpe.h	2008-08-17 13:22:20.000000000 -0400
+@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@
+       *x = (long) (DPE_MANT (y) * 2147483648.0);
+       if (DPE_EXP(y) - 31<0) 
+ 	{
+-	  *x = (long)ldexpl(*x, DPE_EXP(y) - 31);/*Avoid implicit typecasts*/
++	  *x = (long)DPE_LDEXP(*x, DPE_EXP(y) - 31);/*Avoid implicit typecasts*/
+ 	  return 0;
+ 	}
+       else
+@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@
+       *x = (long) (DPE_MANT (y) * 9223372036854775808.0);
+       if (DPE_EXP(y) - 63<0) 
+ 	{
+-	  *x = (long)ldexpl(*x, DPE_EXP(y) - 63);
++	  *x = (long)DPE_LDEXP(*x, DPE_EXP(y) - 63);
+ 	  return 0;
+ 	}
+       else

Reply to: