standards/175811: libstdc++ needs complex support in order use C99

David Chisnall theraven at
Fri Feb 22 09:55:05 UTC 2013

On 4 Feb 2013, at 03:52, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen at> wrote:

> We do really seem to have a lot of working code right now.  And the main
> barrier to commitment seems to be style issues.
> For example, I have code at for the
> complex arctrig functions.  And Bruce has clog available.  And
> presumably he has logl and atanl also available.
> The last I heard about my code is Bruce asking for some style changes.
> However I really don't think I will have time to work on it until at
> least the summer.  And to be honest, style just isn't my thing.
> I propose (a) that someone else takes over my code (and maybe Bruce's
> code) and make the style changes, or (b) that we get a little less fussy
> about getting it all just so right and start committing stuff.
> Let me add that the code we have is already far superior than anything
> in Linux or NetBSD, who clearly didn't worry about huge numerical errors
> in many edge cases.  Come on guys, let's start strutting our stuff.
> Let's commit what we have, even if it isn't perfect.

Yes, please can this happen?  We are currently on 31 test failures in the libc++ test suite on -HEAD, of which at least 18 are due to linker failures trying to find missing libm functions.  We are very close to having a complete C++11 implementation, yet we are held up by the lack of C99 support, and we are held up there by style nits?

On behalf of core, please can we commit the existing code and worry about the style later? Given the expertise required to work on the libm functions, most of the people who are able to hack on the code have already read it and so concerns about consistency readability are somewhat misplaced.


More information about the freebsd-numerics mailing list