From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-21 11:19:22
> Well, it looks like testing for the signature (using your code or
> presumably something from the upcoming for review function type library)
> will not preclude testing for actual accuracy... Though one can wonder
> at this stage if we are still dealing with QOI or a broken library.
Looks like it might be a broken implementation: looking at the output from
it seems that _RWSTD_NO_OVERLOAD_C_POW is defined, and the Rogue Waves
/* If your 'C' library does not provide overloads for the pow function
* (i.e. pow(float,float), and pow(long double, long double) if appropriate),
* then uncommment the following.
/* #define _RWSTD_NO_OVERLOAD_C_POW 1 */
So I guess at least one API is broken.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk