This is now PR 229876.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229876
--
steve
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:20:11PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Version 2. After applying the patch, one can
>
> % svn delete libm/msun/src/polevll.c
> % svn commit libm/msun/src/polevll.c
>
> * lib/msun
Version 2. After applying the patch, one can
% svn delete libm/msun/src/polevll.c
% svn commit libm/msun/src/polevll.c
* lib/msun/Makefile:
. Remove polevll.c
* lib/msun/ld80/e_powl.c:
. Copy contents of polevll.c to here. This is the only consumer of
these functions. Make functions
Julia's libm is https://github.com/JuliaMath/openlibm (or http://openlibm.org/)
The do try merging latest from freebsd (msun), although it seems not
the very latest.
(see e.g. https://github.com/JuliaMath/openlibm/pull/118)
I did try installing the master git branch of openlibm on FreeBSD 11.1
wi
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 01:09:41PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert
> and many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
fwiw, substantially all the work done since at least 2013 is from kargl.
(I am eliding the licensing, Makefile,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
wrote:
> On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
>> many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
>>
>> I'm saying we have history here, and that history, wh
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:00:37PM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
> wrote:
> > On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> >> many mistakes can be avoided by tal
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:00:37PM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
> wrote:
> > On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> >> many mistakes can be avoided by tal
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:23:06PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote:
> I wasn't saying Steve has a lock however in case non-committers
> might feel they do, addressing all points in my reply. Not saying
> anyone feels this way today but we should consider this in whatever
> we decide here (considering all
12:26
To: Cy Schubert
Cc: Ian Lepore; K. Macy; Steve Kargl; FreeBSD Current
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recent libm additions
So something like this:
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 51d3688f8b8..3e6584f24a1 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ k
On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
>
> I'm saying we have history here, and that history, while poorly documented,
> wasn't followed. To the extent it is poorly docu
> From: Warner Losh
> Sent: 15/07/2018 12:09
> To: Cy Schubert
> Cc: Ian Lepore; K. Macy; Steve Kargl; FreeBSD Current
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recent libm additions
>
> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
>
ginal Message-
From: Warner Losh
Sent: 15/07/2018 12:09
To: Cy Schubert
Cc: Ian Lepore; K. Macy; Steve Kargl; FreeBSD Current
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recent libm additions
I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and many
mistakes can be avoided by talking t
e few.
> ---
> --
> From: Ian Lepore
> Sent: 15/07/2018 11:08
> To: Warner Losh; K. Macy
> Cc: Steve Kargl; FreeBSD Current
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recent libm additions
>
> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 11:55 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > On Su
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06:47PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, what information is there for someone to know that
>> Steve should be involved in a review? There is nothing in MAINTAINERS.
>> The review was on phab for alm
es for any typos and autocorrect.
Also, this old phone only supports top post. Apologies.
Cy Schubert
or
The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
---
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lepore
Sent: 15/07/2018 11:08
To: Warner Losh; K. Macy
Cc: Steve Kargl; FreeBSD Current
Subject: Re:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00:41AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > Index: ld80/e_powl.c
>> > ===
>> > --- ld80/e_powl.c (r
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
>
> In the bug report you cite, Chris Lattner states: "This is actually an
> unspecified feature of C99 (whether it supports the _Imaginary type).
> It is desirable to support this, but not a regression.
>
Chris Lattner is wrong when
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06:47PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>
> On the other hand, what information is there for someone to know that
> Steve should be involved in a review? There is nothing in MAINTAINERS.
> The review was on phab for almost a month, and phab is supposedly the
> preferred way to
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:21:25AM -0700, K. Macy wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> > Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
>
> That is not correct. Please
On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 11:55 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been
> > > copied
> > > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been
> > > committed.
> > > Unfortun
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
>> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
>> > Unfortunately, the code was not review
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> > Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
>
> That is not correct. Please stop repe
>
> Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
That is not correct. Please stop repeating it. Bruce Evans and John
Baldwin were both looped in.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00:41AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Index: ld80/e_powl.c
> > ===
> > --- ld80/e_powl.c (revision 336304)
> > +++ ld80/e_powl.c (working copy)
> > @
On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
> subject to any code review. The following patch
> does two things. First, it works around
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
>
> Second, it removes the pollution of libm wit
These changes look perfect to me.
Warner
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:08 AM Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
> subject to any code review. The following patch
> does two things. First, it works around
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
>
> Second,
Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
subject to any code review. The following patch
does two things. First, it works around
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
Second, it removes the pollution of libm with the
polevll.c functions. Those functions are used
only in ld80/e
27 matches
Mail list logo
