This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fourth Draft "Unsafe fp optimizations" project description.
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: Fourth Draft "Unsafe fp optimizations" project description.
- From: Gabriel Paubert <paubert at iram dot es>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:20:15 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl, torvalds at transmeta dot com
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> <<They are as "accurate" - it's just that they have a more limited
> argument range.
> I do not believe that these built in routines meet the Ada requirements
> for accuracy. At least I cannot prove that from the documentation Intel
Look in an appendix of the original Pentium documentation, where they
compare the accuracy of the transcendental instructions to the VAX H float
(128-bit) library and discuss the differences with earlier processors.
I can send you a copy if Intel has cleaned up its web site. I don't have
the Ada requirements but I can't believe that anybody could seriously ask
for more accuracy (you never know until you read, however). The behaviour
on out-of-range inputs is another matter, although I believe that anybody
calling direct trigonometric functions (sin, cos and especially tan) with
large arguments should be aware of the risks he/she is taking.