Sure, there are the x86 intrinsics. But since JEP 306 was delivered, is
this still valid? The Motivation section of the JEP 306 seems to imply that
this is not the case anymore. Of course, I could just be grossly
misunderstanding what is/was JEP 306 and/or to which depth it meant by
"restore always-strict floating-point semantics", but I don't think that I
am the only one out there.

Em dom., 8 de mai. de 2022 às 05:56, Andrew Haley <> escreveu:

> On 5/8/22 06:54, Victor Williams Stafusa da Silva wrote:
> > If StrictMath is still needed and could produce different results than
> > Math in some modern hardware, then by the javadocs, it seems to imply
> that
> > Math should always delegate to StrictMath and never the other way around.
> > Why is it not always the case? I think that the answer is simply because
> > the StrictMath class was largely left unchanged and that delegating in
> one
> > way or in the other could then produce a difference when the strictfp
> > modifier was there, but is there a better reason than that?
> Some targets (x86, in particular) have intrinsics (log, trig) that
> are faster than StrictMath and also more accurate. StrictMath is not
> about accuracy, but cross-architecture down-to-the-last bit
> reproducibility.
> Whether we still need that reproducibility is, I suppose, something for
> debate.
> --
> Andrew Haley  (he/him)
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

Reply via email to