Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 May 2000 10:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Joe Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net>
To:        freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: misc/17848: remove support for CSRG libm
Message-ID:  <200005021700.KAA26598@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR misc/17848; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Joe Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net>
To: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, bde@freebsd.org,
	pkh@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: misc/17848: remove support for CSRG libm
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:48:35 +0100

 On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 09:11:31AM -0700, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
 > I suspect that bde is the only person who has a functioning
 > libm.  As far as the functionality in libm that is missing
 > in msun, I would be interested in some details because I removed
 > libm several weeks ago and I haven't noticed any problems
 > with my computations.  Additionally, a quick glance at 
 > msun/Makefile suggests that the sources in libm are not
 > used in building the math library.
 
 For the record, this is what Bruce and Poul-Henning said:
 
 	On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
   
 	> In message <20000430201742.C48739@pavilion.net>, Joe Karthauser writes:
 	> >What's your opinion?  Should libm be delegated to the attic, or
 	> >should it be made to work again?
   
 	Support for building it should be removed.  The sources may as well be
 	left around a little longer, at least in -current, until bits from them
 	are merged into msun.  The botched source tree (msun instead of libm
 	or at least libmsun) will take longer to recover from.
   
 	> I wasn't aware that it was broken.  How long time has it been broken ?
   
 	Someone removed __pure from <sys/cdefs.h> on 1998/08/24 without updating
 	libm.
   
 	> if significant amounts of time I think removal is the smartest way.
   
 	It's interesting that msun is still missing the gcc-2 version of __pure
 	(__pure2) and that the module that was broken (lgamma) is related to
 	why I left libm around (gamma is actually gamma in libm and should become
 	tgamma (true gamma) in C99-supporting libraries).
   
 	Bruce
 
 I'm not familiar enough with the code/concepts to understand what
 needs porting.  Bruce, is it worth expanding on above?
 
 Joe
 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005021700.KAA26598>