Message ID | 20180606223909.16675-1-tuliom@linux.ibm.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Introduce ieee128 symbols and redirections | expand |
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.)
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?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > 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? Yes.