Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:28:43 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [LIBM] One step closer to C99 conformance Message-ID: <20211105182843.GA26300@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2BHG676p6dmFi7b23bbCM5mS3nA9eV4akNRSxoE5ZKPGw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20211105010733.GA16355@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAPyFy2BHG676p6dmFi7b23bbCM5mS3nA9eV4akNRSxoE5ZKPGw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 01:25:42PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 21:09, Steve Kargl > <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > A patch has been attached to > > > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216862 > > > > which implements cexpl(). > > Great, thank you Steve. > > Do you have a list of what else is left for full C99? (Including > anything that may be implemented in a suboptimal way today and should > be redone.) I have ccoshl and ccosl implemented, but need to do some testing. Things that are missing ctanhl, ctanl, csinhl, and csinl. I have an old implementation of csinhl/csinl, but Bruce had some concerns with handling of NaN and +-inf. Need to dig up some old emails. tgammal, powl, and cpow[fl] are a mess as the people who committed code for these functions seem to have no interest in floating point math on FreeBSD. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125 -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20211105182843.GA26300>