Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:31:59 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/175811: libstdc++ needs complex support in order use C99 Message-ID: <51A7B73F.8040409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130530201513.GA68512@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <201302040328.r143SUd3039504@freefall.freebsd.org> <510F306A.6090009@missouri.edu> <C5BD0238-121D-4D8B-924A-230C07222666@FreeBSD.org> <20130530064635.GA91597@zim.MIT.EDU> <51A77324.2070702@FreeBSD.org> <20130530171348.GA67170@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <51A7ABF7.6060807@FreeBSD.org> <20130530201513.GA68512@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30.05.2013 15:15, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:43:51PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> On 30.05.2013 12:13, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> C99 defines many long double functions. Anyone wanting >>> to use C and libm, and not C++ and boost, will need >>> quality implementations of these functions. Of course, >>> the lack of any actual C99 compiler tends to dampen >>> this argument. >>> >>> What I find appalling is reading "people are tired >>> of the situation with libm, so I'm going to commit >>> some atrocious hack". The proper response should be >>> "so I'm going to help implement and test the missing >>> functionality". It's unfortunate that only a few >>> individuals are working to fix libm, but such is >>> life. >>> >> I guess I was trying to hint that Boost is a good >> place to look at to get ideas for the implementations >> for such stuff. Stephen knows this well though since >> he actually fixed some complex functions in boost :). >> > Boost might be a good place to look for implementation > ideas. Looking at the msun code also works. As does > searching with google. This is all secondary to the > real issue. The real problem is no one is willing to > step forward to actually help write and test the code. > Everyone seems to be waiting (and complaining!) for > someone else to do the work. I've been chipping away at > libm issues since 2003, and given my available free time > I should have a fully compliant C99 libm around 2025 or > so. > And it happens all around the tree ... The guys fixing clang seem pretty overloaded too. We really need a better installer, and to add more DTrace providers and while here more filesystems ... it never stops and we are all just volunteers. All in all, feedback is not necessarily a bad thing. Even if there are few heroic developers working on it, it would help to have a list of open tasks like this: http://www.freebsd.org/projects/c99/ so that someone asking about the status is just pointed there and gets the picture. Just my $0.02, sorry that I am busy with other stuff. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A7B73F.8040409>