-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Invalid mpq.__float__? #498
Comments
Yes. I'll bump the version number to 2.2.2rc1 and will make a release when
we don't think there are any more fixes required.
…On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:23 PM Sergey B Kirpichev < ***@***.***> wrote:
@casevh <https://github.com/casevh>, will you include this (57378b6
<57378b6>)
in the next point release?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#498 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMR233XFG2W6RDNKCMVNZ3ZPHH7XAVCNFSM6AAAAABLIMWTACVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENRSGE2DMMJQGE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@casevh, do you think it's a good idea to keep the master branch for 2.2.x point releases? I believe it's better to use a dedicated branch (say, 2.2) and cherry-pick only some commits from the master branch. |
It's not a good idea. I would like to release 2.2.2 soon and then create a
branch for 2.2.maint.
Is a fix for the fallthrough warnings needed for 2.2.2?
…On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 7:28 PM Sergey B Kirpichev ***@***.***> wrote:
@casevh <https://github.com/casevh>, do you think it's a good idea to
keep the master branch for 2.2.x point releases? I believe it's better to
use a dedicated branch (say, 2.2) and cherry-pick only some commits from
the master branch.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#498 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMR23YJ5CAUILLB6HKJTU3ZP3PLVAVCNFSM6AAAAABLIMWTACVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENRYGA2TINBRGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
If you meant commentaries, I think it's ok: that's just a couple of commentaries:) But if you about #502 - no. This PR looks unsuitable even for the master, unless OP provide a portable way to do deal with such warnings. I don't think we should require C23, thus probably this PR should be rejected. |
Consider following example:
It seems, gmpy2 uses mpq_get_d(), which "Convert op to a double, truncating if necessary (i.e. rounding towards zero)". While Python does round to nearest.
Indeed:
I'll provide a patch.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: