Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148

[Eitan Adler]

On 13 July 2012 09:07, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen at 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