From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-93203-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 79113 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2018 20:25:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 79096 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2018 20:25:16 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com
From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Cc: gabriel@inconstante.eti.br, raji@linux.ibm.com
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062310020.24720@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <20180606223909.16675-1-tuliom@linux.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062310020.24720@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.25 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.3.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:25:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
x-cbid: 18061320-0016-0000-0000-000008F7DF80
X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: 
X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009185; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007;
 PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000265; SDB=6.01046510; UDB=6.00535972; IPR=6.00825485;
 MB=3.00021629; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-13 20:25:11
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
x-cbparentid: 18061320-0017-0000-0000-00003F453D4D
Message-Id: <87bmcecu3g.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-13_08:,,
 signatures=0
X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2

Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

> As a general principle, I'd suggest using a consistent naming convention 
> for all the ieee128 function variants being added in both libc and libm.  
> So, if __ieee128_* is used in libc that would indicate functions such as 
> __ieee128_cosl in libm, for example.  (For the libm functions this is 
> presumably mainly a matter of how a few macros get defined.)

Ack.  We're planning to use the format __*ieee128 everywhere.
However, there are cases that need special treatment and will be slightly
different, e.g.:  __nextowardf_to_ieee128 and __nexttoward_to_ieee128.

Is that OK?

-- 
Tulio Magno