Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:18:04 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216864] C11 conformance: cpow(), cpowf, and cpowl are missing Message-ID: <bug-216864-99-8hN6v8eNjP@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-216864-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-216864-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216864 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl <kargl@FreeBSD.org> --- Ed wrote: > Patches for better quality implementations of > these are most welcome. Not sure if you're being cheeky or not. I'm still trying to fix the kludge perpetrated by theraven@ with his imprecise.c mess. There's only 2 functions left from that fiasco (powl and tgammal). I fixed erfl, erfcl, lgammal, lgammal_r, coshl, sinhl, and tanhl. Getting the details correct (at least for me) isn't easy. r336299 committed code from Cephes for powl, which now papers over theraven@'s original kludge for powl. So, we went from bad to possibly worse. Drive-by commits where the committer has no intention of actually fixing libm, let alone testing, is a major disincentive to continue to work on libm. Finally, libm isn't C99 compliant because ccoshl, ccosl, cexpl, csinhl, csinl, ctanhl, and ctanl are all missing. I spent part of the last two weeks working on ccoshl, ccosl, and cexpl, and had planned to work on csinhl and csinl this weekend. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-216864-99-8hN6v8eNjP>