Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:03:16 -0700 From: Alan Braslau <alan.braslau@comcast.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD numerics - cpow() Message-ID: <20170213230316.0816c89d@zoo.hsd1.co.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20170214053712.GD84013@server.rulingia.com> References: <20170213091051.600f91e1@zoo.hsd1.co.comcast.net> <20170214053712.GD84013@server.rulingia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:37:12 +1100 Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> wrote: > On 2017-Feb-13 09:10:51 -0700, Alan Braslau > <alan.braslau@comcast.net> wrote: > >What is the current status of getting cpow() implemented in FreeBSD? > > There's a WIP in https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/peterj/ > but I got caught up trying to work out how to perfectly multiply > two doubles and am not currently working on it. > > I wonder if we should implement something like > > double cpow(double x, double y) > { > return cexp(y * clog(x)); > } > > just to have something to resolve symbols. > Hello, I do not know anything about the issues behind this. In compiling luatex (that now includes luaffi), we ran into problems on FreeBSD, although none on OpenBSD, MacOS or linux. It should not matter how cpow() is implemented (for us at least), and the above suggestion to resolve symbols would work. I do not believe that we make any use of this call, but it is there, part of luaffi. In fact, our present solution is to throw-out *all* of complex.h, as has to be done for Windows (how embarrassing). Thank you for your rapid response and please let me know what, if anything, you all decide. Alan -- Alan Braslau 816 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA mobile: (970) 237-0957 Conserve energy! ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170213230316.0816c89d>