On 02/14/2012 04:54 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:44, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> On 02/14/2012 04:41 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: >>> Right now we don't have a library either that conforms to C99 >> >> Are you sure? As far as I know we do. We might not meet >> C99 Annex F, but that's not required. >> >>> and meets the far more relaxed accuracy criteria of OpenCL and >>> Ada. > Note the conjunctive "and" here. I was just replying to Vincent > that it doesn't make sense to default to correctly rounded math > yet, as we don't have such a thing.
I was confused: "either X and Y" is a very odd construct. I don't know what it means. But to be absolutely clear, glibc's libm doesn't have a problem meeting C99, AFAIK. > I think it is feasible to integrate a libm meeting minimal > accuracy requirements, as well as variations that additionally > give much improved performance when non-default rounding modes, > trapping and errno setting are not needed. Probably. > It still seems > like glibc's libm is the best candidate to use a base. That depends, because glibc's libm has such a wildly varying bunch of implementations, particularly between 32- and 64-bit x86. Andrew.
