This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections

From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot ibm dot com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Cc: gabriel at inconstante dot eti dot br, raji at linux dot ibm dot com
Cc:
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:25:07 -0300
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections
References: <20180606223909.16675-1-tuliom@linux.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062310020.24720@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

> As a general principle, I'd suggest using a consistent naming convention 
> for all the ieee128 function variants being added in both libc and libm.  
> So, if __ieee128_* is used in libc that would indicate functions such as 
> __ieee128_cosl in libm, for example.  (For the libm functions this is 
> presumably mainly a matter of how a few macros get defined.)

Ack.  We're planning to use the format __*ieee128 everywhere.
However, there are cases that need special treatment and will be slightly
different, e.g.:  __nextowardf_to_ieee128 and __nexttoward_to_ieee128.

Is that OK?

-- 
Tulio Magno

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections
  - From: Joseph Myers

References:
- [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections
  - From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
- Re: [PATCH 0/9] Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections
  - From: Joseph Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]