Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:18:08 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: "freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org" <freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: C99 Long Double Math Functions Message-ID: <26E2AF61-03FA-4940-81BA-9166B1370165@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130521151407.L1076@besplex.bde.org> References: <D78B342A-4316-4EBF-B869-DF50EA353D99@FreeBSD.org> <20130519170901.GA96649@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130521151407.L1076@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 May 2013, at 07:01, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > I spent a half of yesterday so retesting libm for correctness and > cleaning up log*. Style problems in log* currently include its > layering. I am now trying hacks like multiple includes of __FILE__ > to avoid pessimizations and complications from using inline functions. > These give worse layering and different complications. If you promise > to fix the style "nits" in this (move 100K of code around to perfect > places), then it is committable as it is. Is your current code worse than the lack of any implementation? If not, then please commit it. I have no objections to your continuing to improve it after it has been committed, but its lack is currently a blocker for a number of other things. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26E2AF61-03FA-4940-81BA-9166B1370165>