This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] Document _FloatN and _FloatNx versions of math functions
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
> @@ -413,10 +487,14 @@ Mathematically, @code{exp2 (x)} is the same as @code{exp (x * log (2))}.
> @deftypefun double exp10 (double @var{x})
> @deftypefunx float exp10f (float @var{x})
> @deftypefunx {long double} exp10l (long double @var{x})
> +@deftypefunx _FloatN exp10fN (_Float@var{N} @var{x})
> +@deftypefunx _FloatNx exp10fNx (_Float@var{N}x @var{x})
> @deftypefunx double pow10 (double @var{x})
> @deftypefunx float pow10f (float @var{x})
> @deftypefunx {long double} pow10l (long double @var{x})
> @standards{ISO, math.h}
> +@standardsx{exp10fN, GNU, math.h}
> +@standardsx{exp10fNx, GNU, math.h}
> @standardsx{pow10, GNU, math.h}
> @standardsx{pow10f, GNU, math.h}
> @standardsx{pow10l, GNU, math.h}
> @@ -424,16 +502,22 @@ Mathematically, @code{exp2 (x)} is the same as @code{exp (x * log (2))}.
> These functions compute @code{10} raised to the power @var{x}.
> Mathematically, @code{exp10 (x)} is the same as @code{exp (x * log (10))}.
>
> -The @code{exp10} functions are from TS 18661-4:2015; the @code{pow10}
> -names are GNU extensions. The name @code{exp10} is
> -preferred, since it is analogous to @code{exp} and @code{exp2}.
> +The @code{exp10}, @code{exp10f}, and @code{exp10l} functions are from TS
> +18661-4:2015; the @code{pow10} names are GNU extensions. Likewise, the
> +@code{exp10f@var{N}} and @code{exp10f@var{N}x} functions are GNU
> +extensions. The name @code{exp10} is preferred, since it is analogous to
> +@code{exp} and @code{exp2}.
> @end deftypefun
No, exp10fN and exp10fNx aren't GNU extensions; they're also from TS
18661-4 (strictly, the combination of TS 18661-3 and TS 18661-4: "The
following identifiers are declared only if
__STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__ and __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_FUNCS_EXT__
are defined as macros at the point in the source file where <math.h> is
first included").
The patch is OK with that fixed (in both the @standardsx and the textual
description).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com