Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:56:01 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <504F5101.8090906@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <504F4A6B.4010001@coosemans.org> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911132410.GA87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504F4645.4070900@FreeBSD.org> <504F4A6B.4010001@coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: ... >> Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of >> clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a >> high priority item for upstream. >> >> This is obviously something that a certain part of our userbase will >> care a lot about, while most of the time they won't care so much about >> licensing or politics. So those people are probably better off using >> gcc for the time being. > > Does it affect the accuracy of libm functions? It seems to, at least in specific cases; Steve posted about this in an earlier thread on -current: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120905221310.GA97847
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504F5101.8090906>