Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:29:13 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Message-ID: <201206011029.13865.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgncsBv0rrorpg-C8Ay0eMuon=XL4gksFO%2BDARPCOxz5Tw@mail.gmail.com> References: <4FC30090.4070003@gwdg.de> <201205311145.15454.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgncsBv0rrorpg-C8Ay0eMuon=XL4gksFO%2BDARPCOxz5Tw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote: > On 31 May 2012 08:45, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I do think we should provide something in ports as an interim solution. > > There are other 3rd party applications looking to drop FreeBSD support > > because we are missing APIs that almost all other OS's have. I'm fine > > if the interim lives in ports and that we don't import substandard > > routines into the base. I would even be fine with calling it > > /usr/local/lib/libm_inaccurate.so. However, I do think we need an option. > > Do we have a wiki page listing the functions in libm we are missing? > Having some kind of place to track progress and figure out what > exactly is needed is the first step to getting these APIs into shape. > > Also, are there BSD licensed naive implementations of these functions > we can use? Would it be okay to have slow, but accurate versions of > these functions as a stopgap? Peter Jeremy more or less has a stopgap already ready judging by the comments in the thread thus far. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206011029.13865.jhb>