On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:44, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 02/14/2012 04:41 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: >> Right now we don't have a library either that conforms to C99 > > Are you sure? As far as I know we do. We might not meet > C99 Annex F, but that's not required. > >> and meets the far more relaxed accuracy criteria of OpenCL and >> Ada. Note the conjunctive "and" here. I was just replying to Vincent that it doesn't make sense to default to correctly rounded math yet, as we don't have such a thing.
I think it is feasible to integrate a libm meeting minimal accuracy requirements, as well as variations that additionally give much improved performance when non-default rounding modes, trapping and errno setting are not needed. It still seems like glibc's libm is the best candidate to use a base. -Geert
