Re: C floating-point bindings as API sources

[Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

> > Following up to
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-11/msg00115.html>, I'd like to
> > propose that we consider the binary floating-point APIs from parts 1, 3
> > and 4 appropriate for glibc (mostly libm; libc for functions declared in
> > headers such as <stdlib.h> for which existing functions go in libc, or
> > where the corresponding existing functions for other types are in libc).
> 
> i guess that's ok.
[...]
> new aliases (for _FloatN and _FloatNx) mean a lot of new symbols
> and the new functions (or old ones with stricter semantics) can
> add a lot of code size.  embedded systems might not be happy
> about this.

Are you saying that you personally are OK with these APIs for glibc, but 
suppose that hypothetically some other people might object on grounds of 
code size?

I'd like to see more people giving their views of both this proposal 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-11/msg00162.html> and my 
proposed general principles for API sources for the OS-independent GNU API 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-11/msg00115.html>.  Such 
proposals need more than just one person commenting to establish consensus 
(and should also be considered outside the scope of subsystem 
maintainership - although given consensus on the appropriateness of an 
API, relevant subsystem maintainership would then be sufficient to approve 
the actual addition of that API later).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com