This is the mail archive of the
`gcc@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] |

*From*: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>*To*: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org*Date*: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:04:52 +0000*Subject*: Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend*References*: <CAAMvbhGYDB717P8pux5nT-Hw3_NQq7k3HRD=vGTtb9Y+2mzpkg@mail.gmail.com> <4F33A16B.7010507@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1c-qscpC=YrVbEJKa_D-zF88-xbw-wub+jhbRNfFW4Dw@mail.gmail.com> <4F33CC70.3040401@aol.com> <4F33CE33.4000204@redhat.com> <E2293D0E-CDD6-4126-8EF2-25C75CFCE1C4@adacore.com> <CAFiYyc2d7h5=EshA6BEr=QGeSJgCVzTCAHpN9ZS7w-zqjwqAeg@mail.gmail.com> <5CEA5397-B4FB-4E5F-B915-E67887C0D68E@adacore.com> <20120213141401.GC26414@xvii.vinc17.org> <1D6D65C6-1686-4084-B1F6-66BEBD730502@adacore.com> <20120214132254.GF26414@xvii.vinc17.org> <8E140C88-12FA-4F8E-A157-76AB8CCDAFAB@adacore.com> <4F3A8F84.3060106@redhat.com> <02218B28-E5E7-4DF2-87F1-B041A465CE87@adacore.com>

On 02/14/2012 04:54 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:44, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> On 02/14/2012 04:41 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: >>> Right now we don't have a library either that conforms to C99 >> >> Are you sure? As far as I know we do. We might not meet >> C99 Annex F, but that's not required. >> >>> and meets the far more relaxed accuracy criteria of OpenCL and >>> Ada. > Note the conjunctive "and" here. I was just replying to Vincent > that it doesn't make sense to default to correctly rounded math > yet, as we don't have such a thing. I was confused: "either X and Y" is a very odd construct. I don't know what it means. But to be absolutely clear, glibc's libm doesn't have a problem meeting C99, AFAIK. > I think it is feasible to integrate a libm meeting minimal > accuracy requirements, as well as variations that additionally > give much improved performance when non-default rounding modes, > trapping and errno setting are not needed. Probably. > It still seems > like glibc's libm is the best candidate to use a base. That depends, because glibc's libm has such a wildly varying bunch of implementations, particularly between 32- and 64-bit x86. Andrew.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Vincent Lefevre

**References**:**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*James Courtier-Dutton

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Andrew Haley

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Richard Guenther

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Tim Prince

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Andrew Haley

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Geert Bosch

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Richard Guenther

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Geert Bosch

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Vincent Lefevre

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Geert Bosch

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Vincent Lefevre

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Geert Bosch

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Andrew Haley

**Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend***From:*Geert Bosch

Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|

Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |