This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] New generic sincosf
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Joseph Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > glibc is build with -fmerge-all-constants, so constants should already be
>> > shared at link time; making constants hidden would be relevant only for
>> > arrays, not for individual floating-point numbers (and if the individual
>> > constants aren't put in appropriate sections with link-time merging, it's
>> > probably because not doing so is more efficient on a particular
>> > architecture).
>> What do you suggest for x86-64 to avoid array duplication?
> Well, a followup patch to refactor the arrays into hidden variables would
> be reasonable once the sincosf patch is in - but it would need
> benchmarking to make sure it doesn't adversely affect performance.
Do you have any suspicions to indicate that hidden array may be
slower than local one to access?