From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 17:09:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B530106564A; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:09:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11FA8FC16; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22B6DB944; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:09:17 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: David Schultz Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:07:59 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <20120529045612.GB4445@server.rulingia.com> <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207131307.59537.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Diane Bruce , David Chisnall , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl , Peter Jeremy , Warner Losh Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:09:18 -0000 On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:58:05 am 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. > > By the way, the trig and complex functions are areas where anyone with > some calculus background could contribute. If anyone is interested in > helping out, I'd be happy to coordinate things and review patches, > although I will be unavailable for much of August. I think this sounds like an excellent plan, thanks! -- John Baldwin