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

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.

This sounds fantastic.

> By the way, the trig and complex functions are areas where anyone with
> some calculus background could contribute.  If anyone is interested in
> helping out, I'd be happy to coordinate things and review patches,
> although I will be unavailable for much of August.

I would be happy to help.  Just give me a sense of direction of what I 
should try and work on, when and as you are ready.