On 11.07.2012 00:58 (UTC+2), David Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012, Rainer Hurling wrote: >> On 10.07.2012 17:11 (UTC+2), David Schultz wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012, Rainer Hurling wrote: >>>> On 10.07.2012 16:02 (UTC+2), Warner Losh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote: >>>>>> As far as I understand from discussions on R mailing list >>>>>> (r-devel_at_r-project.org), they plan to reduce the emulation and/or >>>>>> workaround of long and complex math functions for FreeBSD and other >>>>>> systems with their next releases of R devel. So we could really need >>>>>> some >>>>>> progress with our C99 conform math functions ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Not having R would be a bit pain in my backside. That's one of the >>>>> practical considerations that I was talking about. It is very real, and >>>>> if I have to, I'll commit the #define junk I railed against to get it >>>>> back. Please, let's get some progress. I have some time to help. >>>> >>>> Yes, thank you Warner, that is also my problem. As I wrote some weeks >>>> ago (05/28/2012) when starting this thread, I am using FreeBSD as a >>>> scientific desktop because of its good scaling properties. For some >>>> years now, FreeBSD fits all our needs with R, SAGA GIS, PostgreSQL and >>>> some more. >>>> >>>> If I would not be able to run upcoming versions of R on FreeBSD any >>>> more, that would be really, really hard :-( >>> >>> Do you have a list of the essential functions here? There are 17 long >>> double functions and some complex functions missing, but only a >>> handful of those are of general interest. The reason I ask is that if >>> R is just looking for a few missing functions that are already mostly >>> implemented, then the best solution is probably to finish that work. >>> But if it's expecting us to have something arcane like long double >>> Bessel functions of the first kind, then we need to pursue a workaround >>> in the short term. >>> >> >> That is, what I found by grepping the sources of a recent R development >> version: >> >> expl: src/nmath/pnchisq.c Many thanks to you three for implementing expl() with r238722 and r238724. I am not a C programmer, but would like to ask if the following example is correct and suituable as a minimalistic test of this new C99 function? //----------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> int main(void) { double c = 2.0; long double d = 2.0; double e = exp(c); long double f = expl(d); printf("exp(%f) is %.*f\n", c, 90, e); printf("expl(%Lf) is %.*Lf\n", d, 90, f); return 0; } //----------------------------------- Compiled with 'c99 -o math_expl math_expl.c -lm' and running afterwards it gives me: exp(2.000000) is 7.389056098930650406941822438966482877731323242187500000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expl(2.000000) is 7.389056098930650227397942675366948606097139418125152587890625000000000000000000000000000000 Already the sixteenth position after decimal point differs. Please forgive me, if this is a really stupid approach for producing some expl() output. uname -a: FreeBSD xxx.xxx.xxx 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r238740: Tue Jul 24 18:08:13 CEST 2012 xxx_at_xxx.xxx.xxx:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/XXX amd64 Rainer >> logl: src/nmath/dnbeta.c >> src/nmath/pnbeta.c > > Bruce has versions of these that could be committed with some cleanup. > It's a matter of sorting through about 1200 emails from him and 3 > source trees to find the most up-to-date patches, then cleaning them > up and testing and committing them. I have no time right now, but I > will do at least the first step as soon as I can, and try to get the > patches to someone willing to do the final few steps. > >> log10l: src/extra/trio/trio.c >> >> log1pl: src/nmath/pnbeta.c > > If Bruce doesn't already have implementations of these, they are easy > wrappers around logl() or some internal k_logl in Bruce's implementation. > >> powl: src/extra/trio/triostr.c >> src/extra/trio/trio.c >> src/main/format.c > > It's hard to do a good job on powl(), but the simple approach > (exp(log(x)*y)) plus a few special cases may suffice for many uses. > >> NEWS:l2044 >> The C99 functions acosh, asinh, atanh, snprintf and vsnprintf are >> now required. > > We have had them forever. > >> NEWS:l3032 >> The C99 double complex type is now required. >> The C99 complex trigonometric functions (such as csin) are not >> currently required (FreeBSD lacks most of them): substitutes are >> used if they are missing. > > We have these (but not the inverse trig functions). > >> NEWS:l3277 >> Complex arithmetic (notably z^n for complex z and integer n) gave >> incorrect results since R 2.10.0 on platforms without C99 complex >> support. This and some lesser issues in trigonometric functions >> have been corrected. >> Such platforms were rare (we know of Cygwin and FreeBSD). >> However, because of new compiler optimizations in the way complex >> arguments are handled, the same code was selected on x86_64 Linux >> with gcc 4.5.x at the default -O2 optimization (but not at -O). > > Not sure if this is relevant. > >> BTW: There seems to be a discrepancy about missing functions listed in >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/MissingMathStuff and in >> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/lib/msun/src/math.h?r1=227472&r2=236148&pathrev=236148. >> So the wiki is a bit outdated now? > > My list: > > REAL FUNCTIONS (17): > > long double log2l(long double); > long double logl(long double); > long double log1pl(long double); > long double acoshl(long double); > long double asinhl(long double); > long double atanhl(long double); > long double log10l(long double); > > long double expl(long double); > long double expm1l(long double); > long double coshl(long double); > long double sinhl(long double); > long double tanhl(long double); > long double erfcl(long double); > long double erfl(long double); > > long double powl(long double, long double); > > long double lgammal(long double); > long double tgammal(long double); > > > COMPLEX FUNCTIONS (37): > > long double complex cexpl(long double complex); > long double complex ccosl(long double complex); > long double complex ccoshl(long double complex); > long double complex csinl(long double complex); > long double complex csinhl(long double complex); > long double complex ctanl(long double complex); > long double complex ctanhl(long double complex); > > > float complex cacosf(float complex); > float complex cacoshf(float complex); > double complex cacos(double complex); > double complex cacosh(double complex); > long double complex cacosl(long double complex); > long double complex cacoshl(long double complex); > > float complex casinf(float complex); > float complex casinhf(float complex); > double complex casin(double complex); > double complex casinh(double complex); > long double complex casinl(long double complex); > long double complex casinhl(long double complex); > > float complex catanf(float complex); > float complex catanhf(float complex); > double complex catan(double complex); > double complex catanh(double complex); > long double complex catanl(long double complex); > long double complex catanhl(long double complex); > > float complex clogf(float complex); > double complex clog(double complex); > long double complex clogl(long double complex); > > float complex cpowf(float complex, float complex); > double complex cpow(double complex, double complex); > long double complex cpowl(long double complex, long double complex); >Received on Wed Jul 25 2012 - 15:17:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:29 UTC