This is the mail archive of the 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: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend

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.


> 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.


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