tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: libm patch

In article 
Stathis Kamperis  <> wrote:
>2010/8/28 Stathis Kamperis <>:
>> 2010/8/27 Christos Zoulas <>:
>>> Stathis Kamperis  <> wrote:
>>>>2010/8/23 Stathis Kamperis <>:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> I have been continuing my work on libm (former gSoC project) and I
>>>>> have a patch[1] that I'd like to share with you.
>>>>> It's a bit mixed in terms of changes (sorry):
>>>>> * Added a few missing MLINKS
>>>>> * Rewritten some elementary complex functions to not rely on gcc
>>>>> extentions (creal, cimag, conj)
>>>>> * Implemented some new elementary real+complex functions (fabsl,
>>>>> copysignl, cproj*)
>>>>> * Probably the most important change, is the introduction of
>>>>> nextafterl() and friends, that will allow us to measure[2] the ULPs of
>>>>> the long double precision functions that will arrive soon
>>>>> * Some tidy up here and there
>>> good.
>>>>> The patch is WIP.
>>>>> I'm sharing early to get feedback, as my build cycles are quite long
>>>>> and I could batch changes :)
>>>>> Thoughts on:
>>>>> * Style (whether __ should be prepended to float_complex for instance
>>>>> (it isn't strictly needed, but gives a visual hint on the custom
>>>>> origin of the type))
>>> I don't know. What does FreeBSD do?
>> Just checked. They don't use __. I guess we could do the same, for
>> less noise while diffing against them.
>>>>> * File layout (should cproj.c be split into cproj.c, cprojf.c, cprojl.c?)
>>>>> * Everything else
>>>>> are very welcome.
>>> I think so to follow existing practice.
>> Ok, I'll break it up.
>>>>Given the lack of general interest, I have filled a PR for this so it
>>>>doesn't get lost:
>>>>Re: lib/43807
>>>>Until the experts can take a look at it :)
>>> Is this committable? There is interest, but not too many cycles to
>look at it.
>> It was a few days ago I checked (applied cleanly & built fine). Let me
>> make the changes (remove __ from custom types, break cproj.c to
>> type-specific files) and then give a new heads up.
>> Thanks!
>> Stathis
>Just an update to this.
>Latest patch can be found here:

You have a patch for x86/include/ieee.h; don't we need a similar patch
to the remaining arch ieee.h files so things compile?


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index