On 28 May 2012, at 05:35, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> Yesterday r236148 (Allow inclusion of libc++ 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 und
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:14:40PM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Running a make -s -j5 buildworld; cleaned the entire obj tree meanwhile.
> Builds are running on a slightly older HEAD thought with an updated libc
> and some headers.
>
> I can reproduce this all the time. Buildworld at this stag
On 05/27/2012 07:05, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm running a little pet project of improving completeness of
> tools/build/mk/OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc file and thus delete-old*
> targets with regard to all possible WITHOUT_* knobs.
>
> E.g. when WITHOUT_foo is defined in src.conf, make d
On 28. May 2012, at 08:42 , Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:14:40PM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> Running a make -s -j5 buildworld; cleaned the entire obj tree meanwhile.
>> Builds are running on a slightly older HEAD thought with an updated libc
>> and some headers.
>>
On 2012-May-27 18:05:41 +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>2) Is this ok to backport the list from current to stable branches? Pro
>- it's really simple, con - it will contain files never installed with
>this (old) branch.
Another con: "make delete-old" on -current takes about 2 orders of
magnitude
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 appl
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 res
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:52:15AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> To respond to my own mail again:
>
> * should the cardbus slot peripherals be detached and reattached upon
> resume? Or should it be just suspend/resumed?
> * here's what I see during suspend:
>
>
> wlan1: link state changed to DOWN
Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-04-28 13:12, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
O. Hartmann wrote:
Is there in "official" way to get this fixed with CLANG? I see that
files folder in graphics/dri is missing, so none of the fixes for both
the faulty source files
I think the patch should go to graphics/l
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 seem
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
I'm pro improving completeness, as most people are
really surprised when after setting WITHOUT* they
are left with old cruft from first install, what's more
important- it's getting left "as is" with all possible
(security) bugs.
Just be careful, as after recent expansion it looked
here like setti
On 2012-05-24 22:50, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 20:21, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> I've seen these too, and it seems clang produces debug info which
>> ctfconvert can't handle, for some reason. However, in my case, the
>> kernel build doesn't abort at all, it continues and all the objec
* Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > I'm running a little pet project of improving completeness of
> > tools/build/mk/OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc file and thus delete-old*
> > targets with regard to all possible WITHOUT_* knobs.
> >
> > E.g. when WITHOUT_foo is defined in src.conf, make del
* Peter Jeremy (pe...@rulingia.com) wrote:
> >2) Is this ok to backport the list from current to stable branches? Pro
> >- it's really simple, con - it will contain files never installed with
> >this (old) branch.
>
> Another con: "make delete-old" on -current takes about 2 orders of
> magnitude
On 2012-05-28 11:21, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
...
> I needed to update headers to be able to recompile ifconfig after some
> additions; then got bitten by that not compiling as libc didn't include
> the symbol for _ThreadRuneLocale yet but the header was already picked up.
> So had to re-do libc as we
On 05/28/2012 12:52, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
>>> I'm running a little pet project of improving completeness of
>>> tools/build/mk/OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc file and thus delete-old*
>>> targets with regard to all possible WITHOUT_* knobs.
>>>
>>> E.g. w
On 2012-May-28 23:55:42 +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>* Peter Jeremy (pe...@rulingia.com) wrote:
>
>> >2) Is this ok to backport the list from current to stable branches? Pro
>> >- it's really simple, con - it will contain files never installed with
>> >this (old) branch.
>>
>> Another con: "m
On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:59:17 -0700 Doug Barton
wrote:
> this issue. The numerous problems we've had with it ever since it was
> introduced seem to bear me out. :)
Can you list them? A missing obsolete file doesn't count.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.netAlexander @ Leidinger.net
On Tue, 29 May 2012 06:04:03 +1000 Peter Jeremy
wrote:
> My experience is that it now takes about 2½ minutes on 10.x with warm
> caches, compared to less than 1 second on 8.x. For most of that time,
> there's no output and there's no warning of the increased time. I
> actually wrote about the p
On 05/28/2012 13:23, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:59:17 -0700 Doug Barton
> wrote:
>
>> this issue. The numerous problems we've had with it ever since it was
>> introduced seem to bear me out. :)
>
> Can you list them? A missing obsolete file doesn't count.
It doesn't cat
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 t
On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -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 cephes code.
On 2012-May-28 13:31:59 -0700, 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
* Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> >> this issue. The numerous problems we've had with it ever since it was
> >> introduced seem to bear me out. :)
> >
> > Can you list them? A missing obsolete file doesn't count.
>
> It doesn't catch things it needs to
> It catches things it shouldn't
>
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 funct
* Peter Jeremy (pe...@rulingia.com) wrote:
> >> >2) Is this ok to backport the list from current to stable branches? Pro
> >> >- it's really simple, con - it will contain files never installed with
> >> >this (old) branch.
> >>
> >> Another con: "make delete-old" on -current takes about 2 orders
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:04:36AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-May-28 13:31:59 -0700, 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 fun
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:05:07AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-May-28 11:01:24 -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 rat
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 M
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 (w);
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;
> >
I had same problem, but I resolved it.
Maybe, your sort (/usr/bin/sort) is broken.
cd /usr/src
make update
cd usr.bin/sort
make obj depend all install
Then, sort is changed.
make cleandir cleandir
make buildworld
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailin
On 5/28/2012 3:05 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
this issue. The numerous problems we've had with it ever since it was
introduced seem to bear me out. :)
>>>
>>> Can you list them? A missing obsolete file doesn't count.
>>
>> It doesn't catch thi
So, the newer sort works fine, and the older sort does not work ? Did I get
your correctly ?
Thanks
Oleg
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:45 PM
> To: freebsd-curre
On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
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 complete C99 implementation.
> F
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:56:13PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-May-28 15:54:06 -0700, Steve Kargl
> 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
> having to hack every consumer to
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;
40 matches
Mail list logo
