Re: [PATCH] Improves __ieee754_exp() performance by greater than 5x on sparc/x86.

[Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

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