Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:59:22 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recent libm additions Message-ID: <20180715205922.GA32747@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20180715192307.45EE0ED6@spqr.komquats.com> References: <20180715192307.45EE0ED6@spqr.komquats.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:23:06PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > I wasn't saying Steve has a lock however in case non-committers > might feel they do, addressing all points in my reply. Not saying > anyone feels this way today but we should consider this in whatever > we decide here (considering all possibilities). IMO adding subject > matter experts to MAINTAINERS seems like the easiest way to document > who might be the go-to person. I don't have a lock, and I don't want one. I do, however, make a part of my living using FreeBSD for floating point intensive research. I think that changes, including the addition of new functions, to libm should be reviewed and preferably tested. Grabbing code from OpenBSD (or anywhere), getting it to compile and integrated into the build infrastructure does not constitute a code review. There is a mailing list dedicated to numerics (aka floating point) on FreeBSD: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180715205922.GA32747>