[RFC] tgmath.h and math/Makefile refactor

[Joseph Myers]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Steven Munroe wrote:

> I am not sure what you are saying here.

A large number of individual, detailed technical comments each of which 
should be studied and understood individually (in the context of careful 
study of the existing glibc code and relevant standards) and all of which 
should influence subsequent iterations of the proposals for APIs and ABIs 
to be added and of the patches towards adding those APIs and ABIs (or be 
discussed in the community with a view to reaching consensus if people 
have specific disagreements with particular technical points).  There 
isn't a short summary because the patch does many things and so raises 
many separate points about those separate things.  And some of the things 
it does are things that illustrate how a patch is premature because 
higher-level consensus is still needed (e.g. on the set of APIs to support 
for the new type).

> I would like to see a separation of concerns so that we can work both
> efforts in parallel and also involve the larger community in the new
> standards effort.

My comments include that changes that are simple refactorings relating to 
support for the existing types can usefully be separated from those 
relating to mechanisms for adding new types.  The former can quite likely 
be established as desirable cleanups on their own merits and go in without 
knowing what the patches to add new types will look like, just like the 
series of patches refactoring libm-test.inc (for example).  The latter may 
be harder to review without seeing the rest of the patch series that ends 
up adding the new types.

I expect that the changes from this thread should end up in several 
separately submitted patches, each doing just one minimal thing, and then 
each of those will need reviewing individually.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com