X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4DA1B193.9080207@aol.com>
References:	<BANLkTi=ud0PMGwwzRRh+hvDVcv4=nACEYA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20110409160524 DOT GA29135 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <BANLkTikd0e3xrD_NS+HFbaSmwFd-YzkBLw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <BANLkTi=LAnmGNaF-MXS5ZUp23TFq9rCDoA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <BANLkTi=hGQXjiEa3s2HZW+yYfC9YSaXXaQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <85C4645B18FA4D37852D725436AB741B AT desktop2> <BANLkTi=XbmP=4PaC6e6_Lbe37r5C9hz5-Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <E1896519D4C841C289335ECC3AD7E470 AT desktop2> <4DA1B193 DOT 9080207 AT aol DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:21:43 -0700
Message-ID:	<BANLkTi=yvyiCrAE99LzL2uYZsgJ59oOeFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: newlib and long-double question
From:	"N. C." <necrocowmoo AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 4/10/11, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 4:28 AM, Sisyphus wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Myers"
>>
>>> The OP is trying to build Perl itself, not use it; hence the need for
>>> long double support functions...
>>
>> You don't need "long double support functions" to build perl ... unless
>> you want to build a perl whose NV is a long double (instead of a double).
>>
>> Presumably the op wants to build a perl whose NV is a long double so
>> that he can make use of that extra precision. Given that he can't build
>> such a perl, the next best way of accessing that extra precision he
>> wants is, imo, to use Math::MPFR.
>>
> I never did see a clear description of OP's goals.  "Performance" was
> among them, so it was unclear why typical mathlinline.h content would
> have been rejected e.g.
>
> __inline_mathcode_ (long double, __sqrtl, __x, return __builtin_sqrtl (__x))
>
>
> As OP indicated, the functions might not have been difficult to write,
> perhaps not as difficult as settling requirements. If the requirement
> was for sqrtl to perform faster than sqrt, the expectation was misguided.

What I wanted was merely to be able to build Perl with both the
'use64bitint' option (which appears to work), as well as the
'uselongdouble', which fails to the lack of those functions being
defined.

With Perl, I really prefer to get as close to a genuine build as
possible so as to avoid any unforeseen issues, but if you have a
suggestion to allow Perl to build with those options, I'm all ears to
hear it. That said, I still think it's overall more benefictial to
actually have those functions implimented in the spected place, within
the c library (usually in libm.)


Thank you.

N. C.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -