On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:13:05AM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> > > Now, if
> > > the OS adds cospi() to libm and it's in libm's symbol map, then the
> > > cospi() used by gfortran depends on the search order of the loaded
> > > libraries.
>
Am 24.01.24 um 10:13 schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM FX Coudert wrote:
Now, if
the OS adds cospi() to libm and it's in libm's symbol map, then the
cospi() used by gfortran depends on the search order of the loaded
libraries.
We only include the fallback math
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> > Now, if
> > the OS adds cospi() to libm and it's in libm's symbol map, then the
> > cospi() used by gfortran depends on the search order of the loaded
> > libraries.
>
> We only include the fallback math functions in libgfortran when they are
Hi,
> Hopefully, FX sees this as my emails to gmail bounce.
I am seeing this email.
> Now, if
> the OS adds cospi() to libm and it's in libm's symbol map, then the
> cospi() used by gfortran depends on the search order of the loaded
> libraries.
We only include the fallback math functions in
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:37:54PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>
> > - If I get this right, to take one example, the Fortran front-end will emit
> > a call to gfortran_acospi_r4(), libgfortran provides this as a wrapper
> > calling acospif(), which is called either from libm or from
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:37:54PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:09 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve,
>
> Hello, long time no see.
Time is short and we're all busy with life, but it is nice to see
familiar names!
>
> > Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:27AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:08:43AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but
> > after a first read I had the following questions:
> >
> > - "an OS's libm may/will
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:08:43AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but
> after a first read I had the following questions:
>
> - "an OS's libm may/will contain cospi(), etc.”: do those functions
> conform to any standard? Are
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:09 AM FX Coudert wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
Hello, long time no see.
> Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but after a first
> read I had the following questions:
>
> - "an OS's libm may/will contain cospi(), etc.”: do those functions conform
> to
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the patch. I’ll take time to do a proper review, but after a first
read I had the following questions:
- "an OS's libm may/will contain cospi(), etc.”: do those functions conform to
any standard? Are there plans to implement them outside FreeBSD at this point?
- On
All,
I have attached a new patch to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
which addresses the following issues.
PR113152 -- implement half-cycle trigonometric functions
PR113412 -- better error message for atan(y,x)
PR113413 -- implement atand(y,x)
The patch clocks in at 3488
11 matches
Mail list logo
