Hi - See below.
On 5/20/15, 9:02 AM, "Jason Riedy" <[email protected]> wrote: >And Damian McGuckin writes: >> On Tue, 19 May 2015, Michael Ferguson wrote: >> >>> I have verified that GCC at least does not inline frexp. I don't >>> understand why it couldn't, but it didn't in my experiments. Neither >>> did clang... >> >> C/C++ does not know the details so cannot expand it. If frexp were >> implemented as a template in C++, it is another story, and another >> email discussion list. > >That's frustrating beyond belief, as gcc+glibc has inlined frexp and ldexp >for me in the past. The only reason I can see not to inline them is to >control trapping behavior, so possibly the change is on the glibc side. >grr. > >(Why sane accessors are missing from 754 is a long story, much of which >I try not to remember.) GCC 4.9.2 appears to have a builtin frexp function. It appears that: * using frexp or __builtin_frexp both result in a call to frexp * GCC should know enough about both so that they do not inhibit optimization, since frexp should be the same as the builtin one. Jason, on a related note, what would you consider sane accessors? Thanks, -michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ Chapel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
