From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BB751F953 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D35385843F for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:12:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 25D35385843F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1640041954; bh=p5VUBP10fDHDFsJHbX3pyIK6Y3701Cns8/ZtJgm1Ht4=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Zwmd/GI4+34ZHrRuXNwQPM873gqk5ghHXHJUMGgFNAqeivre/+bRYLFK0Z6VV18ok LCdh05stptXYWYNPtUAk5HsNrDngXb91/ByFfbm+Xiy/6ifo1wSsaree2l5rvNR8w9 NeIyURMhYTdO7e0DrkQsdf6TKDJubyTKD2tMBnrQ= Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B54DE3858C2C for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:12:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B54DE3858C2C Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id c7so459057plg.5 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 15:12:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p5VUBP10fDHDFsJHbX3pyIK6Y3701Cns8/ZtJgm1Ht4=; b=Yg1A2MwLp/BEui/Fj0+PfpYdzcYux00dH9fbnXD1wKtlaqVTIhoHH8BwXNCW7gtpqF LlF0uO7ItAzx6MohJRC0okwsi8XPt203leI2nWdNc5QuJ+ZkC4MxfnH5E9hT+1sei0/q sQ1QX1iSPHv6qjeR/ySyQzdkeyU/WFU8WtXbkG1PnbdmTAM141Npr6n0B4/YLfba43AV vigYkGPHWV0FEqWpDryCtaFYdX9h3D3AjXVM5UfYXjSsth9fFNWkaGUWSWFk0VBg/ApI m8QkN/tWWtfDvnc+N5+BNPRpNYXU+TeXnve2826ntQZ6afcIY+OksnSUO9+TlR3/Hiyk jI0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302VBOIRlKQOpSr1ILBEwXiiVUCyV27Pqc/G1oYSQI3DPQ5VgdJ A4TpvL9q1HttTR9p/3j5jladobpsd8tGlekUtdbH3Zfn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6ByJVzPYWT5iOiS0MclqpSjMA1FNmx5w4+sSbyCDs4BL1KvTk6nljUtU3wEz0ExuJcGtro4PHQacfV+QRmu0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7797:b0:143:88c3:7ff1 with SMTP id o23-20020a170902779700b0014388c37ff1mr496581pll.22.1640041929840; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 15:12:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211216001239.3648099-1-skpgkp2@gmail.com> <8f4d1d3e-70a6-63e2-ce22-8026ef1006a8@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:11:58 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Add vector math function acos/acosf to libmvec To: Joseph Myers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Noah Goldstein via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Noah Goldstein Cc: "Kolesov, Andrey" , "Cornea, Marius" , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:57 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2021, Cornea, Marius via Libc-alpha wrote: > > > We put a lot of effort in making the changes you requested a few weeks > > ago, and we thought those were sufficient. > > A few weeks ago, there was no mention in the patch submission that this > was generated code at all. So naturally I reviewed the code on the basis > that it was source code as defined in LGPLv2.1. Likewise, I assumed for > the original libmvec submission that it was a good-faith submission of > free software source code. > > Now that the issue has been raised of the code coming out of a compiler, > there is a much higher review bar to be met to demonstrate that it is > nevertheless in the preferred form for modification - because the default > assumption that has to be overcome is that the output of a compiler is > *not* source code, and if it is not source code, it is not free software > and it is not acceptable for glibc. Think this code is "critical path" enough that it will be more frustrating trying to get C to compile to the "right" assembly than to just use the assembly directly. The only issue is if the patches are pushed half-done where it is still difficult to make changes to the source without going through the original source + intel compiler. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com