From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 15:58:13 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 23F58106566B for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:58:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EC18FC08 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q6DFw62a082262; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:58:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Received: (from das@localhost) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.2/Submit) id q6DFw5QA082261; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:58:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:58:05 -0400 From: David Schultz To: David Chisnall Message-ID: <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: David Chisnall , John Baldwin , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Warner Losh , Diane Bruce , Peter Jeremy , Steve Kargl 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Diane Bruce , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl , Peter Jeremy , Warner Losh 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 15:58:13 -0000 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012, David Chisnall wrote: > 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. There are several things wrong with this reasoning, but pragmatically the conclusion may be right: we do have a long list of users who would prefer a dubious implementation to none at all. I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months. A rough outline might be something like: mid-August: expl logl log2l log10l -- just need to clean up Bruce and Steve's work; Steve recently sent me patches for expl, which I hope get committed soon mid-September: acoshl asinhl atanhl coshl sinhl tanhl -- easy once expl is in; others could probably help mid-October: powl expm1l mid-November: most complex.h functions If the schedule can't be met, then we can just import Cephes as an interim solution without further ado. This provides Bruce and Steve an opportunity to commit what they have been working on, without forcing the rest of the FreeBSD community to wait indefinitely for the pie in the sky. By the way, the trig and complex functions are areas where anyone with some calculus background could contribute. If anyone is interested in helping out, I'd be happy to coordinate things and review patches, although I will be unavailable for much of August.