This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!

From: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: roger at eyesopen dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, abraham at dina dot kvl dot dk, Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl, laurent at guerby dot net, fjahanian at apple dot com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:56:16 -0500
Subject: Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!
References: <13661448-7DC0-11D8-817F-000A958F150A@math.purdue.edu> <20040324105146.A1279@synopsys.com>

On Mar 24, 2004, at 1:51 PM, Joe Buck wrote:

And no, I'm not being pedantic; in many scientific apps, the programmer
is aware of the expected range of values the variables will have, and
will deliberately arrange the operations so that variables of similar
magnitudes are combined.

I'm aware of the usual examples. Do you think that we need yet another fast-math flag to allow the compiler to reassociate values in floating-point arithmetic? -freally-unsafe-math-optimizations perhaps? Or maybe such a programmer as you describe will just turn off -funsafe-math-optimizations.

Brad

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!
  - From: Bradley Lucier
- Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!
  - From: Joe Buck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]