Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 22:38:39 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: mokhi <mokhi64@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C11 conformance of casinl-like functions. Message-ID: <20170208221449.K14261@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <CAByVWPUvbG78nUoxQQAOTTY9dJa1agjCZo9oO3dShv2U8Q=y0A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAByVWPUvbG78nUoxQQAOTTY9dJa1agjCZo9oO3dShv2U8Q=y0A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, mokhi wrote: > I recently saw bunch of PRs opened about C11 lack of conformance in > FreeBSD on Bugzilla, complaining cosinl, acosinl, ... not implemented. I think you mean acosl, asinl, ... These were implemented quite well in 2012-2013, but not quite finished, and not committed. Only the float and double version were committed. The raw versions are still available in https://people.freebsd.org/~stephen/catrig*.c. These have rotted and require some editing. Compare with the committed parts to see most of the necessary editing. > I've searched about these and I found documents about them too[2][3]. > Do you think we should implement them? Or standards doesn't have > suggestions on these? > > If yes (you think we should implement them), would you suggest simply > `strong aliasing symbols of FUNC_l to FUNC`? They cannot be implemented by aliasing (except on arches which don't have real long doubles). Bad versions can be implemented using wrappers. Bad versions are worse than none IMO. > or implementing FUNC_l > from scratch? It would be hard to do better than the 2012-2013 implementation. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170208221449.K14261>