Re: weird optimization in sin+cos, x86 backend

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc at vinc17 dot org>]

On 2012-02-14 17:04:52 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 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.

Well, that I was saying was the (future) goal.

> I was confused: "either X and Y" is a very odd construct.  I don't
> know what it means.

I think that the construct was "don't ... either".

> But to be absolutely clear, glibc's libm doesn't have a problem
> meeting C99, AFAIK.

That's not quite correct. It is completely broken in directed
rounding modes (up to crashes).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)