This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Improves __ieee754_exp() performance by greater than 5x on sparc/x86.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Patrick McGehearty wrote:
> On 10/19/2017 5:48 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Patrick McGehearty wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Guaranteeing "inexact" is not part of the goals for most libm functions,
> > > > so I expect you can remove that term.
> > > The "inexact" test was required to pass the (make check) math lib tests.
> > You'll need to explain more. For functions which are not fully defined by
> > a binding to IEEE operations, both spurious and missing "inexact" should
> > be allowed by the testsuite.
> >
> When the following lines are commented out:
> double force_underflow = tiny * tiny;
> math_force_eval (force_underflow);
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the comment I
quoted, '/* the "small" term below guarantees inexact will be raised */',
and the associated uses of the constant "small". Inexact, not underflow.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com