Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:54:48 +0000
From:      David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>
Cc:        pfg@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: standards/175811: libstdc++ needs complex support in order use C99
Message-ID:  <C5BD0238-121D-4D8B-924A-230C07222666@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <510F306A.6090009@missouri.edu>
References:  <201302040328.r143SUd3039504@freefall.freebsd.org> <510F306A.6090009@missouri.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 Feb 2013, at 03:52, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> =
wrote:

> We do really seem to have a lot of working code right now.  And the =
main
> barrier to commitment seems to be style issues.
>=20
> For example, I have code at http://people.freebsd.org/~stephen/ for =
the
> complex arctrig functions.  And Bruce has clog available.  And
> presumably he has logl and atanl also available.
>=20
> The last I heard about my code is Bruce asking for some style changes.
> However I really don't think I will have time to work on it until at
> least the summer.  And to be honest, style just isn't my thing.
>=20
> I propose (a) that someone else takes over my code (and maybe Bruce's
> code) and make the style changes, or (b) that we get a little less =
fussy
> about getting it all just so right and start committing stuff.
>=20
> Let me add that the code we have is already far superior than anything
> in Linux or NetBSD, who clearly didn't worry about huge numerical =
errors
> in many edge cases.  Come on guys, let's start strutting our stuff.
>=20
> Let's commit what we have, even if it isn't perfect.

Yes, please can this happen?  We are currently on 31 test failures in =
the libc++ test suite on -HEAD, of which at least 18 are due to linker =
failures trying to find missing libm functions.  We are very close to =
having a complete C++11 implementation, yet we are held up by the lack =
of C99 support, and we are held up there by style nits?

On behalf of core, please can we commit the existing code and worry =
about the style later? Given the expertise required to work on the libm =
functions, most of the people who are able to hack on the code have =
already read it and so concerns about consistency readability are =
somewhat misplaced.

David




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C5BD0238-121D-4D8B-924A-230C07222666>