Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:55:01 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Message-ID: <C527B388-3537-406F-BA6D-2FA45B9EAA3B@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9EB2DA4F-19D7-4BA5-8811-D9451CB1D907@theravensnest.org> References: <20120529045612.GB4445@server.rulingia.com> <20120711223247.GA9964@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20120713114100.GB83006@server.rulingia.com> <201207130818.38535.jhb@freebsd.org> <9EB2DA4F-19D7-4BA5-8811-D9451CB1D907@theravensnest.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:18, John Baldwin wrote: > 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). >=20 > I concur. =20 As do I. I'd also point out that the ONLY requirement for long double = according to the standard is that it has at least the same precision as = double. Therefore, any implementation of these functions that is no = worse that the double version is compliant. Once we have something = meeting a minimum standard, then I'm very happy to see it improved, but = having C99 functions missing now is just embarrassing while we're = working on adding C11 features. David P.S. Someone said earlier that our clang still lacks some C99 features. = Please point me at the relevant clang PRs and I'll be happy to work on = them. There are quite a few open issues for C11 support, but C99 is, as = far as I know, done. =20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C527B388-3537-406F-BA6D-2FA45B9EAA3B>