Re: AC_C_LONG_DOUBLE is obsolescent.

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote:
> obsolete targets), then using AC_C_LONG_DOUBLE is not recommended.  Part of the
> problem was that the interface provided by AC_C_LONG_DOUBLE defines
> HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE, which is a confusing macro name - there are platforms that do
> indeed have 'long double', but where it is not wider than 'double' - should
> HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE be defined or not?

This is not a problem since according to previously existing 
documentation the answer would clearly be `no'.

It is interesting to me that legacy programming form has been to 
always use the largest type name available which offers the size you 
need rather than the smallest type name which provides the same size. 
So many programmers have used 'long' when they should really have used 
'int'.  When these applications are compiled for a larger 
architecture, the sizes get extended even if the application has no 
need for it.

If 'long double' provides no more range than 'double' then there is no 
benefit to using it.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/