Hi, On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:40 AM Matti Picus <matti.pi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31/5/23 09:33, Jerome Kieffer wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > > > I had a quick look at the PR and it looks like you re-implemented the > > sin-cos > > function using SIMD. > > I wonder how it compares with SLEEF (header only library, > > CPU-architecture agnostic SIMD implementation of transcendental > > functions with precision validation). SLEEF is close to the Intel SVML > > library in spirit but extended to multi-architecture (tested on PowerPC > > and ARM for example). > > This is just curiosity ... > > > > Like Juan, I am afraid of this change since my code, which depends on > > numpy for sin/cos used for rotation is likely to see large change of > > behavior. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jerome > > > I think we should revert the changes. They have proved to be disruptive, > and I am not sure the improvement is worth the cost. > > The reversion should add a test that cements the current user expectations. > > The path forward is a different discussion, but for the 1.25 release I > think we should revert.
Is there a way to make the changes opt-in for now, while we go back to see if we can improve the precision? If that's not practical - would it be reasonable to guess that there will only be a very small proportion of users who will notice large whole-code performance gains from the e.g. 5x performance gain for transcendental functions? Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
