Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:34:37 -0500
From:      Diane Bruce <db@db.net>
To:        David Chisnall <theraven@theravensnest.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:  <20120713153437.GA47229@night.db.net>
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 Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 01:53:39PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> 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).
> > 
> > I concur.  
> 
> 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.
> 

I'd be curious how well the GPL functions in Linux compare to the NetBSD
functions. I don't suppose we could grab some of the public domain routines
in NetLib?

> 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.  
Diane
-- 
- db@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
  Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120713153437.GA47229>