Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:35:44 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnwZ3k=woBt18Y0Fr-mD4fMR4ra9BH=xEMQGOuGEk8VAA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <500047DB.60607@missouri.edu> References: <20120529045612.GB4445@server.rulingia.com> <20120711223247.GA9964@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20120713114100.GB83006@server.rulingia.com> <201207130818.38535.jhb@freebsd.org> <9EB2DA4F-19D7-4BA5-8811-D9451CB1D907@theravensnest.org> <C527B388-3537-406F-BA6D-2FA45B9EAA3B@FreeBSD.org> <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> <500047DB.60607@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 July 2012 09:07, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> wrote: > On 07/13/12 10:58, David Schultz wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012, David Chisnall wrote: >>> >>> As do I. I'd also point out that the ONLY requirement for long >>> double according to the standard is that it has at least the same >>> precision as double. Therefore, any implementation of these >>> functions that is no worse that the double version is compliant. >>> Once we have something meeting a minimum standard, then I'm very >>> happy to see it improved, but having C99 functions missing now is >>> just embarrassing while we're working on adding C11 features. >> >> >> There are several things wrong with this reasoning, but pragmatically >> the conclusion may be right: we do have a long list of users who would >> prefer a dubious implementation to none at all. >> >> I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months. >> A rough outline might be something like: >> >> mid-August: expl logl log2l log10l >> -- just need to clean up Bruce and Steve's work; Steve recently >> sent me patches for expl, which I hope get committed soon >> mid-September: acoshl asinhl atanhl coshl sinhl tanhl >> -- easy once expl is in; others could probably help >> mid-October: powl expm1l >> mid-November: most complex.h functions >> >> If the schedule can't be met, then we can just import Cephes as an >> interim solution without further ado. This provides Bruce and Steve >> an opportunity to commit what they have been working on, without >> forcing the rest of the FreeBSD community to wait indefinitely for >> the pie in the sky. +1 If we do import Cephes the questionable functions should probably be explicitly marked somewhere so that if there is still $someone can still work on them though. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnwZ3k=woBt18Y0Fr-mD4fMR4ra9BH=xEMQGOuGEk8VAA>