From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8064 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2011 22:58:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 8047 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2011 22:58:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_CG,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f45.google.com) (74.125.82.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:58:19 +0000 Received: by wwi36 with SMTP id 36so4829480wwi.2 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.143.228 with SMTP id l78mr3466241wej.21.1302389896486; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.238.205 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110409160524.GA29135@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: newlib and long-double question From: marco atzeri To: cygwin@cygwin.com Cc: "N. C." Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:10 PM, N. C. wrote: > On 4/9/11, marco atzeri wrote: don't quote email address. On this list is highly unpolite. >>>>I have recently discovered that the cygwin version I am using (1.7.7) >>>>doesn't support many long-double function, like sqrtl, modfl, frexpl, >>>>etc. As cgf mentioned they are not implemented "yet" in cygwin >>>> >>>>I have been reading on newlib's website, sourceware.org/newlib, that >>>>as of version 1.18.0, such long-double functions are now supported. >>>>(http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2009/msg01135.html) >> >> further the newlib announce says: >> * long double math routines added for platforms where LDBL =3D=3D DBL on cygwin LDBL(80 bit) !=3D DBL(64 bit) so we have not such outcome >> >> so in reality you gain no additional performance on the double. >> >>>> >>>>What I can't seem to find out is, what version of newlib is in the >>>>newest release of cygwin, and if it has this better support for >>>>long-double functions. >>> >>> Cygwin uses whatever is in the newlib tree as of its release date. =A0T= hat >>> means that since Cygwin 1.7.7-1 was released in August 2010* it would >>> incorporate any newlib changes from 2009. =A0That doesn't mean that we = would >>> export every single thing that newlib provides, however. =A0If function= ality >>> is missing that means that no one has taken the time to get it working = in >>> the Cygwin DLL. >>> >>> cgf >>> >>> *http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-announce/2010-08/msg00035.html >>> >> >> on 1.7.8 most of the missing "double" function were added >> http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-announce/2011-03/msg00000.html >> >> I thought to implement also the long double but as doubles are 64 bit >> and long doubles are just 80 bits on windows, I found the effort not wor= th. >> >> Marco > > I have fully updated my cygwin tp 1.7.9(0.237/5/3) and I still get > this error when I try to build Perl (5.12.3 in this case but same with > other versions) with uselongdouble enabled in the Configure script, > which fails with: > > *** You requested the use of long doubles but you do not seem to have > *** the following mathematical functions needed for long double support: > *** =A0 =A0 sqrtl modfl frexpl > *** Please rerun Configure without -Duselongdouble and/or -Dusemorebits. > *** Cannot continue, aborting. The message is clear "Don' use long double". Have you checked how the cygwin perl mantainer is doing the things ? > > > On a Linux system that I have access to, I see that those functions > are in /lib/libm.* but cygwin's /lib/libm.* still seems to lack them. > Is there any work around or alternate version ofthis lib that actually > has these functions. I honestly do not mean to be rude, but how > difficult is it to impliment these functions which seem so common in > most unix-like systems? It is not overcomplicated to implement it, but it takes time and someone to do it. When I implemented all the complex functions (cabs, ccos..) I spent one mon= th to make it right. A more capable guy will take less surely, but as mention I see little benefit moving from 64 to 80 bits so I was not interested to implement it. > Or did nothing not get updated when I updated > cygwin? > > Thanks, > > M. C Marco -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple