X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <85C4645B18FA4D37852D725436AB741B@desktop2>
From: "Sisyphus" <sisyphus1 AT optusnet DOT com DOT au>
To: "marco atzeri" <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: "N. C." <necrocowmoo AT gmail DOT 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>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=hGQXjiEa3s2HZW+yYfC9YSaXXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: newlib and long-double question
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:25:01 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	format=flowed;	charset="iso-8859-1";	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marco atzeri"

>> On a Linux system that I have access to, I see that those functions
>> are in /lib/libm.* but cygwin's /lib/libm.* still seems to lack them.
>> Is there any work around or alternate version ofthis lib that actually
>> has these functions. I honestly do not mean to be rude, but how
>> difficult is it to impliment these functions which seem so common in
>> most unix-like systems?
>
> It is not overcomplicated to implement it, but it takes time and
> someone to do it.
> When I implemented all the complex functions (cabs, ccos..) I spent one 
> month
> to make it right. A more capable guy will take less surely, but as
> mention I see little
> benefit moving from 64 to 80 bits so I was not interested to implement it.
>

I sense an opportunity here to plug (to the op) the Math::MPFR perl module - 
for which the gmp and mpfr C libraries are required.
I guess one could also use Math::BigFloat, but I assume the op has already 
considered (and rejected) that option - the performance hit incurred by its 
use has always discouraged me.
Perhaps he has also already considered and rejected Math::MPFR, but it seems 
to me to be by far the best option for achieving added precision with 
floating point numbers - at least until such time as building perl 
with -Duselongdouble has been facilitated.

Cheers,
Rob



--
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