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

On 2012-Jul-11 15:32:47 -0700, Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>I know an approach to implementing many of the missing
>functions.

Are you willing to share this insight so someone else could do the work?

>  When I do find
>some free time, I look at what is missing and start to
>put together a new function.  At the moment, it seems
>that it takes 3+ years to get a new function written,
>tested, and committed.

And, from what I can see, much of this is done quietly - which opens
up the possibility that two people might both implement the same code
or that people will avoid the area in fear of treading on someone
else's toes.  As I said previously, I believe the existing wiki page
could be improved to form a central co-ordinating point to show what
what activity is (or isn't) occurring.

>but most people seem to push the "easy button" and want
>to grab either cephes or netlib's libm.  There are
>technical issues with this approach that I won't 
>rehash again.

Doing it properly requires significant effort by people with fairly
specialised skills.  Whilst the project has several people with the
skills, it appears that none of them currently have the time.  In the
meantime, FreeBSD is taking free kicks from other FOSS groups that
have gone down the quick-and-dirty path.

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).

-- 
Peter Jeremy