On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 01:53:39PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:18, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> AFAIK, none of the relevant standards (POSIX, IEEE754) have any > >> precision requirements for functions other than +-*/ and sqrt() - all > >> of which we have correctly implemented. I therefore believe that, for > >> the remaining missing functions, the Project would be best served by > >> committing the best code that is currently available under a suitable > >> license and cleaning it up over time (as was done for the current > >> libm). > > > > I concur. > > As do I. I'd also point out that the ONLY requirement for long double > according to the standard is that it has at least the same precision as > double. Therefore, any implementation of these functions that is no worse > that the double version is compliant. Once we have something meeting a > minimum standard, then I'm very happy to see it improved, but having C99 > functions missing now is just embarrassing while we're working on adding C11 > features. >
I'd be curious how well the GPL functions in Linux compare to the NetBSD functions. I don't suppose we could grab some of the public domain routines in NetLib? > David > > P.S. Someone said earlier that our clang still lacks some C99 features. > Please point me at the relevant clang PRs and I'll be happy to work on them. > There are quite a few open issues for C11 support, but C99 is, as far as I > know, done. Diane -- - d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies! _______________________________________________ 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"
