From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 16:08:09 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 A4EE9106564A for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:08:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF208FC17 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [128.206.184.213] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DG7tEE076436; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:07:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <500047DB.60607@missouri.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:07:55 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120628 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20120713155805.GC81965@zim.MIT.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 16:08:09 -0000 On 07/13/12 10:58, David Schultz wrote: > 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. This sounds fantastic. > 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. I would be happy to help. Just give me a sense of direction of what I should try and work on, when and as you are ready.