On 05/28/2012 06:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
From clog.c in http://www.netlib.org/cephes/c9x-complex
double complex
ccosh (z)
double complex z;
{
double complex w;
double x, y;
x = creal(z);
y = cimag(z);
w = cosh (x) * cos (y) + (sinh (x) * sin (y)) * I;
return (w);
}
See math_private.h about the above.
I looked in math_private.h - I presume you meant
lib/msun/src/math_private.h. I wasn't able to find anything about ccosh
there.
I think that for a rough and ready ccosh, this is high enough quality
for a math/cephes port.
I do agree that it might not be high enough quality to make FreeBSD base.
(Although I don't think I have ever been in a situation where I would
have been tripped up by a transcendental function that responded
incorrectly to exceptional input.)
And, finally,
Yes, it is very nice.
Who's writing the code to test the implementations? That is
better much the problem. Without testing, one might get an
implementation that appears to work until it doesn't! It took
me 3+ years to get sqrtl() into libm, but bde and das (and
myself) wanted to make sure the code worked.
Fair enough if we are talking about the base system.
I haven't looked at glibc code in years, because I hack on libm
when I can. I do not want to run into questions about whether
my code is tainted by the gpl.
They had similar lists of exceptions.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
