Re: [PATCH 0/3]: Add math support for non LDBL_EQ_DBL architecture

See below.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:24 AM Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Jennifer,
>
> On Apr  3 15:58, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> > The attached set of patches add long double support for i386, aarch64
> and
> > x86_64.  The riscv and powerpc are supported by FreeBSD but will need
> more
> > work to be supported by newlib.  FreeBSD has separate 64 and 32 bit
> powerpc
> > support which would have to be integrated for newlib. FreeBSD riscv
> support
> > is 64 and there are issues with fenv.h that would have to be addressed.
>
> Thanks for your patchset, it looks pretty well to me, though I like
> to have input on this from my co-maintainer Jeff, too.
>

Looks good.  I do have a comment about how the flag checks should not be
removed in math.h.  The _REENT_ONLY checking should still be honored as
well as
the m68k flag: __math_68881.  There could be platforms where long double is
supported (possibly doubles are 32 bits and long double is 64 bits), but
there are only the 3 platforms that have the machine support headers at
present.  As well, from ieeefp.h there are other
LDBL_MANT_DIG possibilities mentioned (e.g. 53, 65, 112) which the new code
cannot handle.


> I noticed that you exclude Cygwin from the new code, which makes sense
> as long as we provide our own long double math taken from Mingw-w64.
>
> However, there's something not quite right.  When trying to build I get
> symbol conflicts for the fdim{f,l} and scalbln{f,l} symbols in the link
> stage (paths shortend for readability):
>
> ld: libm.a(libm_a-s_fdim.o): in function `fdimf':
> newlib/libm/ld/s_fdim.c:47: multiple definition of `fdimf';
> libm.a(libm_a-sf_fdim.o):newlib/libm/common/sf_fdim.c:16: first defined here
>
> ld: libm.a(libm_a-s_fdim.o): in function `fdiml':
> newlib/libm/ld/s_fdim.c:48: multiple definition of `fdiml';
> libdll.a(fdiml.o):winsup/cygwin/math/fdiml.c:11: first defined here
>
> ld: libm.a(libm_a-s_scalbln.o): in function `scalblnf':
> newlib/libm/ld/s_scalbln.c:46: multiple definition of `scalblnf';
> libm.a(libm_a-sf_scalbln.o):newlib/libm/common/sf_scalbln.c:34: first
> defined here
>
> ld: libm.a(libm_a-s_scalbln.o): in function `scalblnl':
> newlib/libm/ld/s_scalbln.c:53: multiple definition of `scalblnl';
> libdll.a(scalbnl.o):winsup/cygwin/scalbnl.S:19: first defined here
>
> The conflicts really ony occur for these four functions.  Any chance
> to fix these?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>
>