Re: print_npx_status_word

["Baars, M.J." <mjbaars1977 dot gdb at gmail dot com>]

On 04/16/2011 06:30 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:21:16 +0200
> > From: "Baars, M.J."<mjbaars1977.gdb@gmail.com>
> >
> > On 04/16/2011 04:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:46:09PM +0200, Baars, M.J. wrote:
> > > > On 04/16/2011 10:24 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:08:48 +0200
> > > > > > From: "Baars, M.J."<mjbaars1977.gdb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this is the format you requested?
> > > > > No!  This is a .tar.gz.  Proper diffs don't come as a .tar.gz.
> > > > Oops... did I remove one of your entries in the ChangeLog? :)
> > > If you want a patch to be committed, eventually you're going to have
> > > to say why.  What's the goal of the patch?
> > When you look at the code in question more closely, you will see that it
> > will present the content of the status word in more detail than the
> > original function,
> Which isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'll show you the difference in output after the 'info float' command.

original output:

Status Word:         0x0000
                       TOP: 0

new and improved output:

status word              : 0x0000
  exception flags        :
  stack fault            : 0
  error summary status   : 0
  busy                   : 0
  top of stack pointer   : 0
  condition code         :

This will give you a much better overview of what is actually happing in 
the numeric core, which is eventually what every programmer wants is 
what I was always taught.

> > > Also, why on earth are you messing about with old changelog entries?
> > The old function can thus be seen as obsolete, and should be removed
> > from the old log entries.
> Seems you totally fail to understand what ChangeLogs are for.

Would you rather have obsolete function names flying all over the place 
then? I don't understand, eventually this will get you into trouble.

Regards,
Michael