On September 13, 2018 4:32:42 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Monakov
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> What do people think? Ideally I'd like to support this in a generic
>way so all targets can
>> benefit, but it's also feasible to enable it on a per-target basis.
>Also since not
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think this is totally fine if you call it expif or something like that (and
> put the sine in the imaginary part, of course).
And declare it in bits/cmathcalls.h as included from complex.h, rather
than in math.h. With an appropriate custom
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> What do people think? Ideally I'd like to support this in a generic way so
> all targets can
> benefit, but it's also feasible to enable it on a per-target basis. Also
> since not all libraries
> will support the new interface, there would have to be
On 13/09/18 14:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/13/2018 03:27 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The existing sincos functions use 2 pointers to return the sine and cosine
>> result. In
>> most cases 4 memory accesses are necessary per call. This is inefficient and
>> often
>> significantly
On 09/13/2018 03:27 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Hi,
The existing sincos functions use 2 pointers to return the sine and cosine
result. In
most cases 4 memory accesses are necessary per call. This is inefficient and
often
significantly slower than returning values in registers. I ran a few
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The existing sincos functions use 2 pointers to return the sine and cosine
> result. In
> most cases 4 memory accesses are necessary per call. This is inefficient and
> often
> significantly slower than returning values in
Hi,
The existing sincos functions use 2 pointers to return the sine and cosine
result. In
most cases 4 memory accesses are necessary per call. This is inefficient and
often
significantly slower than returning values in registers. I ran a few
experiments on the
new optimized sincosf
