Re: [PATCHv2 03/11] Support for type-generic libm function implementations libm

[Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Paul E. Murphy wrote:

> +#if M_LIBM_NEED_COMPAT (carg)
> +  declare_mgen_libm_compat (__carg, carg)
>  #endif

This sort of thing is not conventionally indented.

> diff --git a/sysdeps/generic/math-type-macros.h b/sysdeps/generic/math-type-macros.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..3befde1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/sysdeps/generic/math-type-macros.h

How would you envisage additional types being handled?  Overriding the 
header with a variant that duplicates its contents but with extra types 
being handled doesn't seem like a good idea.  Maybe there should actually 
be a header per type, which then includes the generic type-independent 
header, or something like that?  I think more rationale is needed for the 
design relating to this header, anyway.

> +#if M_TYPE == M_FLOAT
> +# define M_PFX FLT
> +# define M_LIT(c) c ## f
> +/* Use the double version instead.  */
> +# define M_MLIT(c) c
> +# define M_SUF(c) c ## f
> +# define M_FUNC(c) c ## f
> +# define FLOAT float
> +# define CFLOAT __complex__ float
> +# define M_HUGE_VAL HUGE_VALF

Somewhere there needs to be a comment explaining the semantics of every 
one of these macros.  Especially, I can't tell what the difference of 
intent between M_SUF and M_FUNC is (which places should use one, which 
should use the other).  In one place you call M_SUF (__atan2), in another 
you define M_ATAN2 to M_FUNC (__ieee754_atan2) - why the difference 
between M_SUF and M_FUNC there?

> +#ifndef M_DECL_FUNC
> +# define M_DECL_FUNC(f) M_FUNC(f)
> +#endif

Missing space before '(' in macro call.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com