From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 30 15:30:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB1616A4CF for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8F843FBF for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:30:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAUNUSFY090348 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:30:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id hAUNUSXZ090347; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:30:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:30:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200311302330.hAUNUSXZ090347@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org From: "Steven G. Kargl" Subject: Re: standards/59797: Implement C99's round[f]() math fucntions X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Steven G. Kargl" List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:30:29 -0000 The following reply was made to PR standards/59797; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Steven G. Kargl" To: David Schultz Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/59797: Implement C99's round[f]() math fucntions Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:27 -0800 (PST) David Schultz wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003, Steven G. Kargl wrote: > > The enclose diff contains an implementation of the round() and > > roundf() math functions found in C99. This is C language > > implementation and a MD implementation may be preferred, but it > > appears to at least supply the missing functionality. > > Cool. I'll look into committing this after the freeze. > > You wouldn't feel up to taking care of roundl() too, would you? roundl() will be trivial if we have ceill(). > This unfortunately requires writing ceill() or modfl(), which is > tricky because long double representation is somewhat machine > dependent... I'll need to understand the bit twiddling in ceil() before I can tackle ceill(). -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/