Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:51:04 -0500
From:      Kyle Evans <kevans91@ksu.edu>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, Ngie Cooper <ngie@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: libm long double functions on ARMv6.
Message-ID:  <CACNAnaH%2B7q4bhHxfvhrmXdrBqaKVGDGKQNbXdVDGT==fFb4OWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqoH7uzLNPFNCC3enX_NnJ19SCTVVw6zMkh5CkHoR28AA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CACNAnaEKPytPoHdDbfgyneqyMcLhtE96J%2BnOO9ARQRkJxh9pjA@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqoH7uzLNPFNCC3enX_NnJ19SCTVVw6zMkh5CkHoR28AA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> This change looks good. Are there other functions that need this
> same treatment?

>From what I was able to find, no. Every other long double function
seems to be properly aliased.

> And shouldn't this be
>
> #if LDBL_MANT_DIG == DBL_MANT_DIG
>
> instead?
>
> Warner

I would be inclined to agree, but for some reason all of the other
conditional blocks meeting this context used the hardcoded '53'. I
thought it best to be consistent with that for now, so that it'd be a
more obvious hint (for the time being) that these were all related
from a cursory grep.

A good sed(1) might be nice, though, to make it more obvious that this
is what's happening.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaH%2B7q4bhHxfvhrmXdrBqaKVGDGKQNbXdVDGT==fFb4OWA>