On 13 July 2012 09:07, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <step...@missouri.edu> wrote: > On 07/13/12 10:58, David Schultz wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012, David Chisnall wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> There are several things wrong with this reasoning, but pragmatically >> the conclusion may be right: we do have a long list of users who would >> prefer a dubious implementation to none at all. >> >> I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months. >> A rough outline might be something like: >> >> mid-August: expl logl log2l log10l >> -- just need to clean up Bruce and Steve's work; Steve recently >> sent me patches for expl, which I hope get committed soon >> mid-September: acoshl asinhl atanhl coshl sinhl tanhl >> -- easy once expl is in; others could probably help >> mid-October: powl expm1l >> mid-November: most complex.h functions >> >> If the schedule can't be met, then we can just import Cephes as an >> interim solution without further ado. This provides Bruce and Steve >> an opportunity to commit what they have been working on, without >> forcing the rest of the FreeBSD community to wait indefinitely for >> the pie in the sky.
+1 If we do import Cephes the questionable functions should probably be explicitly marked somewhere so that if there is still $someone can still work on them though. -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ 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"
