From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39961 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2017 21:57:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact newlib-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: newlib-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 39918 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2017 21:57:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=reputable, H*r:ip*192.168.2.2, summer, Summer X-HELO: OARmail.OARCORP.com Received: from oarmail.oarcorp.com (HELO OARmail.OARCORP.com) (67.63.146.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 21:57:33 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.168] (192.168.1.168) by OARmail.OARCORP.com (192.168.2.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.389.2; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:57:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Long double complex methods To: Dionna Amalie Glaze , Aditya Upadhyay CC: "newlib@sourceware.org" References: From: Joel Sherrill Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 21:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017/txt/msg00499.txt.bz2 On 6/28/2017 4:36 PM, Dionna Amalie Glaze via newlib wrote: > Gave it a quick look-over (I'm not a core dev, but figured I'd look > since you seem eager). It looks like everything is indeed from the > current NetBSD codebase. > > cacoshl.c has #if 0'd code that probably shouldn't be checked in? The > #if 0 is directly from NetBSD, but still #if 0s aren't nice. > > clogl.c why not use cargl(z) for rr? The compiler would inline it, and > arg(z) is closer to the math. > > cprojl.c More of a note to others: I was confused why you would use > HUGE_VAL instead of __INFINITY, but apparently that was a conscious > change here http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libm/complex/cprojl.c?rev=1.6&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN > from http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libm/complex/cprojl.c?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN I can't argue the rationale for any of the above except to say that the goal is to import unmodified source from third party sources. Newlib generally trusts that the upstream sources are "reputable". > > Would you please include additions to libm/test/ for your included > functionality? That probably should be upstreamed to NetBSD too, since > I see they have no tests *gasp* > http://www.mirrorservice.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/tests/lib/libm/ Agreed they need tests but that would be a NetBSD issue. Also, although I don't know how to run them, doesn't someone run glibc tests on newlib? They likely have tests for this for newlib's purposes. I would like to know how to run then :) Aditya.. file a NetBSD ticket with the list of methods they don't have any tests for. I may have to get a NetBSD account so I can track the ticket. FWIW Aditya is a Google Summer of Code student for RTEMS working to improve POSIX compliance for newlib and by implication RTEMS and Cygwin. Issues with upstream sources with the code should be filed upstream. > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Aditya Upadhyay wrote: >> Hello Developers, >> >> I have ported all long double complex methods with suffix "l" from >> NetBSD. I am attaching the patches for all the methods. I am >> requesting you to please review these patches and point me any >> modification needed. >> >> Thanks & Regards, > > >