[PATCH 00/10] Optimized math routines

[Szabolcs Nagy]

On 06/07/18 18:17, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 06/07/18 17:27, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/06/2018 11:46 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> On 06/07/18 13:43, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2018 04:47 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>>> Optimized exp, exp2, log, log2, pow, sinf, cosf and sincosf
>>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Is it your intent to have these included in 2.28?
>>>>
>>>
>>> (resending as my previous mail seems to be lost)
>>>
>>> yes, i'd like to add it to the 'desirable in 2.28' list
>>> if Joseph is ok with the code, but i see he is not available
>>> right now for review.
>>>
>>> i don't know how other maintainers feel about such change,
>>> there needs to be an ulp update (i'm willing to do that for
>>> targets i can access hw for testing).
>>
>> Where there any unanswered questions in your v4 review?
>>
>> Do you think v4 is basically as good as it will get?
>>
>> Who were the people who signed off on the review?
>>
> 
> Joseph Myers started the review of both the sinf, cosf, sincosf
> changes and the exp, exp2, log, log2, pow changes.
> 
> I think I addressed all of his comments in an acceptable way,
> but i don't know if he had other concerns or if parts of the
> code he has not reviewed yet.
> 
> Since the glibc tests pass on 3 different targets (and
> build-many-glibcs.py) i think there is no danger of the
> patch being completely broken.  Wilco and I tested the patches
> in detail outside of glibc so it is the glibc integration where
> I expected most of the issues.
> 
> I don't expect performance regression on any target, but it
> was not measured e.g. on powerpc (only aarch64 and x86_64)
> which might have different behaviour (previous sincosf was
> optimized on that target hence it might make sense to retest
> the new code to be sure).
> 
> I think the patches are in a good quality state now.
> (The ABI changing part needs further work so i didn't post that.)

built and tested on a power8 machine now, glibc math
tests pass (except for an unrelated fmal failure),
benchmark improvements are consistent with aarch64/x86_64,
but it was a shared access machine so i won't post exact
numbers, sincosf improved a bit too, sinf/cosf didn't
(apparently powerpc has its own implementation).