On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:16:42 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: > [clip] >> Ok, I have started this in the coremath branch - it solves the warning >> issues we got since the merge of formatting stuff. I tested it on Linux, >> windows (both mingw and VS - still need to test on Win64), so I think it >> is good to go in the trunk. The functions exported are in a separate >> header: >> >> http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/browser/branches/coremath/numpy/ > core/include/numpy/npy_math.h > > One question: doesn't this add one extra function call to all umath > functions? Could we do '#define npy_XXX XXX' in the npy_math.h header > when the appropriate platform-specified functions are available?
I think it does add a cost. I thought about it, but I don't know whether this is significant or not. The problem of #define npy_XXX XXX is that the header needs to know whether the corresponding function is available - and we can't import HAVE_XXX symbols in npy_math.h. Another argument against the define is that in the future, we could load the actual implementation at runtime (SSE, etc...). If we use define, that's not possible. I don't know how to evaluate the cost of function call on those functions: I tried some naive benchmark, but with cache effects and all, I am not convinced I was measuring anything meaningful. > > I think they should be. Then we could easily use C99 complex math > functions on plaforms on which they are available (and so get the > "correct" corner-case semantics for free on these platforms). maybe we could change the names, then ? nc is not very clear IMHO (and since they were static up to now, we are free to change them I believe). cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
