Am 26.07.2012 03:52 (UTC+1) schrieb Bruce Evans:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 25.07.2012 19:00 (UTC+2), Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Many thanks to you three for implementing expl() with r238722 and
r238724.
I am not a
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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?
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
On 07/25/12 11:29, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:27:43PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/25/12 11:29, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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
On 25.07.2012 19:00 (UTC+2), Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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
On 07/25/12 12:31, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:27:43PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/25/12 11:29, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:33:07PM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 25.07.2012 19:00 (UTC+2), Steve Kargl wrote:
If you actually want to test expl() to see if it is producing
a decent result, you need a reference solution that contains
a higher precision. I use mpfr with 256 bits of
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 25.07.2012 19:00 (UTC+2), Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/25/12 12:31, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:27:43PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Just as a point of comparison, here is the answer computed using
Mathematica:
N[Exp[2], 50]
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012, Warner Losh wrote:
Just to jump back into the fray a bit, since this point hasn't been
articulated well.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-08 19:01:07 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Well, on the most
On 13 Jul 2012, at 17:40, Warner Losh wrote:
We shouldn't be gating the new math on an issue that only affects sparc64
machines
Mostly agreed, but it's worth noting that the APCS for ARMv8[1] specifies that
long double should be IEEE 754- 2008 quad precision. I think ARMv8 is going
to be
On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:24 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 17:40, Warner Losh wrote:
We shouldn't be gating the new math on an issue that only affects sparc64
machines
Mostly agreed, but it's worth noting that the APCS for ARMv8[1] specifies
that long double should be IEEE
On 2012-Jul-11 15:32:47 -0700, Steve Kargl s...@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
On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
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,
On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:18, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
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
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:41:00PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-11 15:32:47 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@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?
For
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 01:53:39PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:18, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
AFAIK, none of the relevant standards (POSIX, IEEE754) have any
precision requirements for functions other than +-*/ and
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
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
On 13 July 2012 09:07, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu wrote:
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
Just to jump back into the fray a bit, since this point hasn't been articulated
well.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-08 19:01:07 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Well, on the most popular hardware (that being i386/amd64),
ld80 will
On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:58:05 am 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
On 2012-Jul-13 11:58:05 -0400, David Schultz d...@freebsd.org wrote:
I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months.
...
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
On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-13 11:58:05 -0400, David Schultz d...@freebsd.org wrote:
I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months.
...
If the schedule can't be met, then we can just import Cephes as an
interim solution without further
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 08:38:08AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-Jul-13 11:58:05 -0400, David Schultz d...@freebsd.org wrote:
I propose we set a timeframe for this, on the order of a few months.
...
If the schedule can't be met, then we can just import Cephes as an
interim solution
On 14/07/2012, at 2:35, Eitan Adler wrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:02:33AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
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
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:02:33AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Not having R would be a bit pain in my backside. That's one of the
practical considerations that I was talking
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 02:43:46PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:02:33AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
...
You submitted on June 6th, 2010. I
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:54:14PM -0500, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 02:43:46PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:02:33AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer
On 09.07.2012 01:36 (UTC+2), Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:51:56AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 6:40 AM, David Schultz wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
Given
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:10:05AM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Do you think your version from
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152415 for expl() ld80
version could be the one getting into head? Would you be willing to
commit it?
That's a fairly early version of the ld80
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
As far as I understand from discussions on R mailing list
(r-de...@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
On Jul 10, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:10:05AM +0200, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Do you think your version from
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152415 for expl() ld80
version could be the one getting into head? Would you be willing to
commit
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-de...@r-project.org), they plan to reduce the emulation and/or workaround of
long and complex math functions for FreeBSD and other
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-de...@r-project.org), they plan to reduce the emulation and/or
workaround of long and
On Jul 10, 2012, at 9:11 AM, 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-de...@r-project.org), they plan to
On 07/09/2012 12:02 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Yep. Another example is the use of upward recurion to compute
Bessel functions where the argument is larger than the order.
The algorithm is known to be unstable.
By upward recursion, do you mean equation (1) in
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/09/2012 12:02 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Yep. Another example is the use of upward recurion to compute
Bessel functions where the argument is larger than the order.
The algorithm is known to be unstable.
By
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-de...@r-project.org), they plan to
On 07/10/2012 11:50 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/09/2012 12:02 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Yep. Another example is the use of upward recurion to compute
Bessel functions where the argument is larger than the order.
The
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 01:11:38PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/10/2012 11:50 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/09/2012 12:02 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Yep. Another example is the use of upward recurion to
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
On 2012-Jul-08 19:01:07 -0700, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
Well, on the most popular hardware (that being i386/amd64),
ld80 will use hardware fp instruction while ld128 must be
done completely in software. The speed difference is
significant.
AFAIK, of the architectures
Hi,
On 9 Jul 2012, at 06:02, Steve Kargl wrote:
If you're doing accouting, hopefully, you're using BCD.
Would be nice, but it's far too slow for financial analysis; the chip designers
go out of their way to provide fast floating point. Fortunately 53 bits is
usually plenty with 2dp max.
--
On Sunday, July 08, 2012 7:56:52 pm David Schultz wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012, Steve Kargl wrote:
The question remains of what to do about the missing functions. Bruce
and Steve have been working on expl and logl for years. If those ever
get in the tree, the remaining long double
On Tue, May 29, 2012, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Given that cephes was written years before C99 was even
conceived, I suspect all functions are sub-standard.
Well, most of cephes was written before C99. The C99
On Jul 8, 2012, at 6:40 AM, David Schultz wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Given that cephes was written years before C99 was even
conceived, I suspect all functions are sub-standard.
Here is a technical question. I know that people always talk about
ulp's in the context of how good a function implementation is. I think
the ulp is the number of base 2 digits at the end of the mantissa that
we cannot rely on.
So if one were to write a naive implementation of lexp(x) that
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:51:56AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 6:40 AM, David Schultz wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Given that cephes was written years before C99
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012, Steve Kargl wrote:
The question remains of what to do about the missing functions. Bruce
and Steve have been working on expl and logl for years. If those ever
get in the tree, the remaining long double functions are easy. Those
functions are basically done,
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:06:46PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Here is a technical question. I know that people always talk about
ulp's in the context of how good a function implementation is. I think
the ulp is the number of base 2 digits at the end of the mantissa that
we
On 07/08/2012 06:58 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:06:46PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
So do people really work hard to get that last drop of ulp out of their
calculations?
I know very few scientist who work hard to reduce the ULP. Most
have little
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 07:29:30PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/08/2012 06:58 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:06:46PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
So do people really work hard to get that last drop of ulp out of their
calculations?
I know very
On Jul 8, 2012, at 8:01 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Not to mention, I've seen way too many examples of 'x - y'
where cancellation of significant digits causes
problems. Throw in rather poor estimates of function
results with real poor ULP and you have problems.
Are these problems significantly
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 08:13:21PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 8:01 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Not to mention, I've seen way too many examples of 'x - y'
where cancellation of significant digits causes
problems. Throw in rather poor estimates of function
results with real
On 07/08/2012 09:01 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Have you read Goldberg's paper?
I must admit that I had not. I found it at:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html
Not to mention, I've seen way too many examples of 'x - y'
where cancellation of significant digits causes
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 10:41:44PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 07/08/2012 09:01 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Have you read Goldberg's paper?
I must admit that I had not. I found it at:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html
Yes, it's easy to find.
On 31 May 2012 08:45, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
I do think we should provide something in ports as an interim solution.
There are other 3rd party applications looking to drop FreeBSD support
because we are missing APIs that almost all other OS's have. I'm fine
if the interim lives
I do think we should provide something in ports as an interim solution.
There are other 3rd party applications looking to drop FreeBSD support
because we are missing APIs that almost all other OS's have. I'm fine
if the interim lives in ports and that we don't import substandard
Do we have a wiki page listing the functions in libm we are missing?
Having some kind of place to track progress and figure out what
exactly is needed is the first step to getting these APIs into shape.
I already suggested this, and mentioned:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/MissingMathStuff
Also,
On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote:
On 31 May 2012 08:45, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
I do think we should provide something in ports as an interim solution.
There are other 3rd party applications looking to drop FreeBSD support
because we are missing APIs that
On 2012-Jun-01 10:29:13 -0400, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote:
Also, are there BSD licensed naive implementations of these functions
we can use? Would it be okay to has slow, but accurate versions of
these functions as a stopgap?
On 1 June 2012 17:03, Peter Jeremy pe...@rulingia.com wrote:
On 2012-Jun-01 10:29:13 -0400, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote:
Also, are there BSD licensed naive implementations of these functions
we can use? Would it be okay to has slow,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:16:03PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 1 June 2012 17:03, Peter Jeremy pe...@rulingia.com wrote:
On 2012-Jun-01 10:29:13 -0400, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, June 01, 2012 1:55:10 am Eitan Adler wrote:
Also, are there BSD licensed naive
On 1 June 2012 23:52, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Of course. Sit down and write code.
If I ever find the time, I just might. Do we have a wiki page listing
the set of functions which we don't yet have?
--
Eitan Adler
___
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:04:58AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 1 June 2012 23:52, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Of course. ??Sit down and write code.
If I ever find the time, I just might. Do we have a wiki page listing
the set of functions which we don't yet have?
On Monday, May 28, 2012 7:02:18 pm Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:05:07AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
step...@missouri.edu wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math
On 05/31/12 10:45, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, May 28, 2012 7:02:18 pm Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:05:07AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
step...@missouri.edu wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a
On 01/06/2012, at 2:42, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
I do think we should provide something in ports as an interim solution.
There are other 3rd party applications looking to drop FreeBSD support
because we are missing APIs that almost all other OS's have. I'm fine
if the interim lives
On 05/29/12 19:54, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
[...]
Anyway, given that floating point is a big issue, and we are about a
decade behind schedule, really suggests that a
floating-po...@freebsd.org mailing list is needed. Or maybe there is an
existing freebsd mailing list you guys already
Perhaps a more general name might be appropriate so as to include
fixed-point problems? math-libs@? numerics@?
I'm sure someone will come up with a better name.
mcl
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
Perhaps a more general name might be appropriate so as to include
fixed-point problems? math-libs@? numerics@?
I'm sure someone will come up with a better name.
mcl
Numerics@ is good .
Other names may be
Holy crap, if there was ever a current example of a bikeshed, this is it. :-)
Adrian
On 30 May 2012 10:19, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
Perhaps a more general name might be appropriate so as
This discussion confirms my impression, that it should be possible as an
interim solution, to use a port for missing math functions (cephes alike
or whatever). The port itself could warn the user about inaccuracies and
edge-cases.
Parts of Cephes are already in ports: math/ldouble. I had planned
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:56:13PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
There some test code in cephes. Can you point me to a suitable test
suite for LD80 and LD128? The reason for calling it libm is to avoid
On 29.05.2012 08:10 (UTC+1), Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:56:13PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargls...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
There some test code in cephes. Can you point me to a suitable test
suite for LD80 and LD128? The
On 05/29/2012 11:48 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 29.05.2012 08:10 (UTC+1), Steve Kargl wrote:
sqrtl() is a bit special in that IEEE 754 requires that
it have no more than 0.5 ULP for all arguments in all
roundng modes. As to other functions, I've been trying
for 10+ years to get some of these
.. I don't think it's a bad idea to get freebsd-numeric@ created and
start discussing this kind of stuff there.
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail
Hi,
Reference:
From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
Anyway, given that floating point is a big issue, and we are about a
decade behind schedule, really suggests that a
floating-po...@freebsd.org mailing list is needed. Or maybe there is an
existing freebsd mailing
On 05/28/2012 07:07 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 06:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
From clog.c in http://www.netlib.org/cephes/c9x-complex
double complex
ccosh (z)
double complex z;
{
double complex w;
On 28 May 2012, at 05:35, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Yesterday r236148 (Allow inclusion of libc++ cmath to work after including
math.h) was comitted to head, many thanks.
Does this mean, that extra long double functions like acoshl, expm1l or
log1pl are now really implemented? As far as I
On 28.05.2012 10:41 (UTC+1), David Chisnall wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 05:35, Rainer Hurling wrote:
First I should note that I am by no means an expert in C / C++ or C99
standards. So my comments are only on a level of someone who is using
FreeBSD for scientific purposes like GIS and math
On 28 May 2012, at 13:30, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 28.05.2012 10:41 (UTC+1), David Chisnall wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 05:35, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Ok, that's what I had supposed. Because the main difference between r236147
and r2136148 seems to be the define of _MATH_EXTRA_H_, the rest is
On 28.05.2012 14:49 (UTC+1), David Chisnall wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 13:30, Rainer Hurling wrote:
On 28.05.2012 10:41 (UTC+1), David Chisnall wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 05:35, Rainer Hurling wrote:
Ok, that's what I had supposed. Because the main difference between r236147 and
r2136148
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the math/sage
port, using a rather clever patch due to Peter Jeremy, that applies to
the cephes code.
What it would do is to create a /usr/local/lib/libm.so that would
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the math/sage
port, using a rather clever patch due to Peter Jeremy, that applies to
the
On 05/28/2012 03:31 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the math/sage
port, using a rather clever patch due to
On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith step...@missouri.edu
wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the math/sage
port, using a rather clever patch due to Peter Jeremy, that applies to
On 2012-May-28 13:31:59 -0700, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 04:19:22PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 03:31 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:04:36AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 13:31:59 -0700, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:05:07AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
step...@missouri.edu wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port that adds
the extra C99 math functions. This is already done in the math/sage
port,
On 05/28/2012 05:17 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 04:19:22PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 03:31 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
One thing that could be done is to have a math/cephes port
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 06:03:37PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 05:17 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 04:19:22PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 03:31 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:01:24AM -0500, Stephen
On 05/28/2012 06:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
From clog.c in http://www.netlib.org/cephes/c9x-complex
double complex
ccosh (z)
double complex z;
{
double complex w;
double x, y;
x = creal(z);
y = cimag(z);
w = cosh (x) * cos (y) + (sinh (x) * sin (y)) * I;
return
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 05/28/2012 06:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
From clog.c in http://www.netlib.org/cephes/c9x-complex
double complex
ccosh (z)
double complex z;
{
double complex w;
double x, y;
x = creal(z);
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
Given that cephes was written years before C99 was even
conceived, I suspect all functions are sub-standard.
Well, most of cephes was written before C99. The C99 parts of
cephes were written to turn it into a
99 matches
Mail list logo
