Thanks David! Indeed, here is the commit and ticket: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/commit/3ea33411d7cbf32c20940cc72ca07df6830eeed7 https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14927
This concerns only `asinh` though. The implementation is closer to what Matt proposes in his package but simpler. Nevertheless, the original issue about `Infinity` on large negative numbers seems to be fixed with this. So, I guess, feel free to kill the patch. -- Best, Artem On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 23:19 David Feuer <da...@well-typed.com> wrote: > Wasn't there a very recent commit to improve these functions, by > leftaroundabout? > > On Thursday, August 2, 2018 8:16:10 AM EDT Artem Pelenitsyn wrote: > > Here is the patch: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D5034 > > > > -- > > Best, Artem > > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 06:26 Artem Pelenitsyn <a.pelenit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I'd be willing to do this. > > > > > > -- > > > Best wishes, > > > Artem > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 04:38 Matt Peddie, <mped...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks, Ben, for chiming in. I think calling out to C for these > > >> functions is the way to go if it's now feasible. (Calling out to libm > > >> is the workaround I'm using in the application that led me to discover > > >> the inaccuracy.) > > >> > > >> Matt > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> > wrote: > > >> > Matt Peddie <mped...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi George, > > >> >> > > >> >> Not a stupid question. I don't have a single source at hand, but I > > >> >> think I read in a few places on the wiki that calling out to the > > >> >> system math library is not an option due to the variety of system > math > > >> >> libraries on the platforms GHC supports. It'd be great if I got > the > > >> >> wrong impression and this could just be a call to C. Can anyone > set > > >> >> me straight on this point? > > >> >> > > >> > Indeed it's not a stupid question at all. Indeed this is precisely > what > > >> > we do for the simpler transcendentals (e.g. sin, asin, log). We very > > >> > well could move in this direction in the case of asinh/atanh as > well. I > > >> > believe the reason we don't currently is that atanh was only > > >> > standardized in C99, which we only started requiring a few releases > ago. > > >> > Perhaps this is ultimately the right direction. > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > > > >> > - Ben > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ghc-devs mailing list > > >> ghc-devs@haskell.org > > >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > David Feuer > Well-Typed >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs