[openbeos] Re: POSIX headers
- From: "Adi Oanca" <e2joseph@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 01:54:48 +0300
From: "Ingo Weinhold"
>
> On 2003-09-17 at 20:25:36 [+0200], Adi Oanca wrote:
> > ...forgot about round(). But then again... we don't have such a
function.
> > :-)
> >
> > From: "Adi Oanca" <e2joseph@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > From: "Matthijs Hollemans"> > Why do we use our POSIX headers, if they
are
> > > not completely
> > > > > functional?
> > > > > for example I want to use 'lroundf()' function found in math.h.
> > > >
> > > > According to a quick Google search I just did, lroundf() was added
to
> > the
> > > > C99 standard. I don't think our version of gcc supports that
standard,
> > or
> > > > does it?
> > > >
> > > > Then again, R5 only supports a fraction of POSIX anyway.
> > >
> > > OK, be it like so.
> > >
> > > Please tell me: how can I have a float's rounded value in an
int32...
> > > float y = 3.14f;
> > > int32 z = (int32)round( y );
> > > ... without a compiler warning?
>
> I wonder, what is the warning you get? It looks like perfectly legal code
to
> me. Or are you referring to the `implicit declaration...' error?
Nope. That's strange, I went to BeOS and run an example... without
warnings. A while back, I remember to have seen such a warning. I think I
saw something else, maybe from:
msg->AddInt32("xxx", (int32)round(f));
?
Oh well.. it does not matter any more... the code above work just fine,
so I'll use it.
> I wonder, why round() isn't declared for x86 in the R5 <math.h> header.
The
> symbol is in libroot and it seems to work, too.
:-) In our math.h it isn't declared at all!
We need that guys, or should we use:
v = floorf( value>=0.0f? value+0.5f : value-0.5f );
? :-)
Adi.
Other related posts:
