Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:16:03 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Message-ID: <CAF6rxgmwbjOD2-noUnB%2BMsX9GZFC42O8D7g1qE93ZWP2WRU_=Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120602000357.GC56049@server.rulingia.com> References: <4FC30090.4070003@gwdg.de> <201205311145.15454.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgncsBv0rrorpg-C8Ay0eMuon=XL4gksFO%2BDARPCOxz5Tw@mail.gmail.com> <201206011029.13865.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120602000357.GC56049@server.rulingia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 June 2012 17:03, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> wrote: > On 2012-Jun-01 10:29:13 -0400, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote: >>> Also, are there BSD licensed naive implementations of these functions >>> we can use? Would it be okay to has 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. > > There's probably an hours work by either stephen@ or myself to adapt > the work I did on cephes in Sage to a standalone FreeBSD port. > Unfortunately, both stephen@ & I are currently otherwise occupied and > other comments in this thread suggest that the inclusion of such a port > would be strongly opposed. > > Note that cephes isn't "slow but accurate" - it's reasonably fast but > naive and therefore dodgy in edge cases. Yes, I was asking if any of the former type exist. Optimally we would want fast and accurate - but it doesn't currently exist. Fast, but inaccurate has been strongly objected to. Is there third option? -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgmwbjOD2-noUnB%2BMsX9GZFC42O8D7g1qE93ZWP2WRU_=Q>