On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:33:20PM +0100, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 29 June 2014 23:20, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 08:54:49AM +0100, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d > > wrote: > >> On 29 Jun 2014 05:48, "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 08:41:24PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via > >> Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> > > On 6/28/14, 6:02 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > > >I think this thread needs to refocus on the main point, > >> > > >getting math overloads for float and double and how to > >> > > >mitigate any problems that might arise from that. > >> > > > >> > > Yes please. -- Andrei > >> > > >> > Let's see the PR! > >> > > >> > >> I've already raised one (already linked in this thread). > > > > Are you talking about #2274? Interesting that your implementation is > > basically identical to my own idea for fixing std.math -- using > > unions instead of pointer casting. > > > > Not really. The biggest speed up was from adding float+double > overloads for floor, ceil, isNaN and isInfinity. Firstly, the use of > a union itself didn't make much of a dent in the speed up. Removing > the slow array copy operation did though. Secondly, unions are > required for this particular function (floor) because we need to set > bits through type-punning, it just wouldn't work casting to a pointer. [...]
I wasn't referring to the speedup (though that is certainly nice), I was talking about making things CTFE-able. What's the status of repainting unions in CTFE? Is there a PR for that yet, or do we need to implement one? T -- People tell me that I'm skeptical, but I don't believe it.
