From owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 21 13:18:13 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AB7F3B for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 13:18:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@freebsd.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669BE7D for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 13:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpc27-cmbg15-2-0-cust235.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com [86.27.188.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4LDIBRS003502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 May 2013 13:18:12 GMT (envelope-from theraven@freebsd.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: C99 Long Double Math Functions From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <20130521151407.L1076@besplex.bde.org> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:18:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <26E2AF61-03FA-4940-81BA-9166B1370165@freebsd.org> References: <20130519170901.GA96649@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130521151407.L1076@besplex.bde.org> To: Bruce Evans X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: "freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org" , Steve Kargl X-BeenThere: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of high quality implementation of libm functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:18:13 -0000 On 21 May 2013, at 07:01, Bruce Evans wrote: > I spent a half of yesterday so retesting libm for correctness and > cleaning up log*. Style problems in log* currently include its > layering. I am now trying hacks like multiple includes of __FILE__ > to avoid pessimizations and complications from using inline functions. > These give worse layering and different complications. If you promise > to fix the style "nits" in this (move 100K of code around to perfect > places), then it is committable as it is. Is your current code worse than the lack of any implementation? If not, then please commit it. I have no objections to your continuing to improve it after it has been committed, but its lack is currently a blocker for a number of other things. David