Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148

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).
>=20
> I concur. =20

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.

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. =20=
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"