MSVC compilation fixes

[Michael Goffioul-2]

Please consider the following patch for inclusion

http://hg.tw-math.de/octave-graphics-mq/rev/a15e56860500

It fixes various compile problem and/or typos that makes it
compile with MSVC. Note that the changes related to the
"pow" function should be reviewed, as I'm not sure if my
modifications are correct.

Michael.

[John W. Eaton]

On 20-Jun-2008, Michael Goffioul wrote:

| Please consider the following patch for inclusion
|
| http://hg.tw-math.de/octave-graphics-mq/rev/a15e56860500
|
| It fixes various compile problem and/or typos that makes it
| compile with MSVC. Note that the changes related to the
| "pow" function should be reviewed, as I'm not sure if my
| modifications are correct.

diff -r 7683fa6c06a2 src/OPERATORS/op-int.h
--- a/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h Mon Feb 11 10:11:56 2008 +0100
+++ b/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h Fri Jun 20 12:40:27 2008 +0200
@@ -227,13 +227,13 @@
   octave_value \
   xpow (const octave_ ## T1& a, float b) \
   { \
-    return pow (a, b); \
+    return pow (a, static_cast<double> (b)); \
   } \

Shouldn't we use powf here instead?  Does MSVC provide powf, or do we
need a replacement in lo-specfun.cc (or lo-mappers.cc; I'm not sure
now why these files aren't combined)?

jwe

[Michael Goffioul-2]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM, John W. Eaton <jwe@...> wrote:

> diff -r 7683fa6c06a2 src/OPERATORS/op-int.h
> --- a/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h    Mon Feb 11 10:11:56 2008 +0100
> +++ b/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h    Fri Jun 20 12:40:27 2008 +0200
> @@ -227,13 +227,13 @@
>   octave_value \
>   xpow (const octave_ ## T1& a, float b) \
>   { \
> -    return pow (a, b); \
> +    return pow (a, static_cast<double> (b)); \
>   } \
>
> Shouldn't we use powf here instead?  Does MSVC provide powf, or do we
> need a replacement in lo-specfun.cc (or lo-mappers.cc; I'm not sure
> now why these files aren't combined)?

Maybe David should comment on it. MSVC has powf
(but it simply defined to (float)pow(a,b) on non-64bits architectures)).

Michael.

[David Bateman]

Michael Goffioul wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM, John W. Eaton <jwe@...> wrote:
>  
>> diff -r 7683fa6c06a2 src/OPERATORS/op-int.h
>> --- a/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h    Mon Feb 11 10:11:56 2008 +0100
>> +++ b/src/OPERATORS/op-int.h    Fri Jun 20 12:40:27 2008 +0200
>> @@ -227,13 +227,13 @@
>>   octave_value \
>>   xpow (const octave_ ## T1& a, float b) \
>>   { \
>> -    return pow (a, b); \
>> +    return pow (a, static_cast<double> (b)); \
>>   } \
>>
>> Shouldn't we use powf here instead?  Does MSVC provide powf, or do we
>> need a replacement in lo-specfun.cc (or lo-mappers.cc; I'm not sure
>> now why these files aren't combined)?
>>    
>
> Maybe David should comment on it. MSVC has powf
> (but it simply defined to (float)pow(a,b) on non-64bits architectures)).
>
> Michael.
>
>  

I'd say use powf.. If I didn't it was just an oversight..

D.

--
David Bateman                                David.Bateman@...
Motorola Labs - Paris                        [phone] (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    [phone] (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  [phone] (Fax)

The information contained in this communication has been classified as:

[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary

[Michael Goffioul-2]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:56 PM, David Bateman
<David.Bateman@...> wrote:
> I'd say use powf.. If I didn't it was just an oversight..

OK. I updated the corresponding patch in the graphics patch queue.

Michael.

[John W. Eaton]

On 10-Jul-2008, Michael Goffioul wrote:

| On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:56 PM, David Bateman
| <David.Bateman@...> wrote:
| > I'd say use powf.. If I didn't it was just an oversight..
|
| OK. I updated the corresponding patch in the graphics patch queue.

I applied it to my archive.

Thanks,

jwe