From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 12:28:45 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E209E1065670; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:28:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48A88FC22; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E52D8B944; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:18:38 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <20120529045612.GB4445@server.rulingia.com> <20120711223247.GA9964@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20120713114100.GB83006@server.rulingia.com> In-Reply-To: <20120713114100.GB83006@server.rulingia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207130818.38535.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Warner Losh , Diane Bruce , Peter Jeremy , David Schultz , Steve Kargl Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:28:46 -0000 On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote: > AFAIK, none of the relevant standards (POSIX, IEEE754) have any > precision requirements for functions other than +-*/ and sqrt() - all > of which we have correctly implemented. I therefore believe that, for > the remaining missing functions, the Project would be best served by > committing the best code that is currently available under a suitable > license and cleaning it up over time (as was done for the current > libm). I concur. However, are there any patches that we can commit now? It seems that there are some things that could go into the tree now that will certainly reduce the concerns of the R folk. -- John Baldwin