Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:24:30 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 294719] lib/msun: Added fmaximum_mag_num Message-ID: <bug-294719-99-J1f3mxFyfl@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-294719-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=294719 Robert Clausecker <fuz@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|16.0-CURRENT |CURRENT Status|New |Open --- Comment #4 from Robert Clausecker <fuz@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Jesús Cipriano Blázquez Martínez from comment #3) Ok, I guess I was unclear about what I meant by "Not sure if the void cast to avoid the unused warning is actually needed". I meant that perhaps the whole (void)force_except; statement can be removed. If it is present, then yes, you should cast (void) to avoid a “statement without effect” warning. But I think it can be removed entirely. I'll check which case it is and copy-edit your patch before landing it. I do also wonder if we can do better in the final tie break. How about this for fmaximum_mag*()? return (signbit(x) ? y : x); and conversely for fminimum_mag*()? return (signbit(x) ? x : y); This would also apply to the versions with _num() and would allow us to avoid unpacking the datum entirely. Unfortunately our signbit() macro resolves in such a way that the compiler does not recognise it as such and generates really bad code. That should be fixed long term. Maybe short term the current approach is thus better. kargl, what do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-294719-99-J1f3mxFyfl>