Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 22:27:27 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216864] cpow(), cpowf(), and cpowl() need better implementations Message-ID: <bug-216864-99-OxJXOvsFys@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-216864-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-216864-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216864 --- Comment #6 from Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4) Sorry for the snarkiness of my comment, I did not intend it to be so. Either way the intent is genuine - I really do want to see proper implementations = in libm rather than hacks that paper over issues. To that end, what do you think about: a. adding comments to those files referencing this PR (or a similar PR for other functions) and pointing out that a proper implementation is required b. adding a link-time warning (as emitted if using e.g. gets) that the curr= ent implementation is poor quality Is this an accurate view of the current status: Some sort of work in progress: ccoshl ccosl cexpl csinhl csinl Improved implementations needed: cpow cpowf cpowl powl tgammal No current implementation: ctanhl ctanl --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-216864-99-OxJXOvsFys>