On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Do this only for fast-math as accuracy is reduced. This is much faster
> >> since pow is more complex than exp - with a current GLIBC the speedup
> >> is more than 7 times for this transformation.
> >
> > Is it bound to be so on future glibc
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >> This patch simplifies pow (C, x) into exp (x * C1), where C1 = log (C).
> >
> > I don't think you can do that for non-positive C.
True, that can
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> This patch simplifies pow (C, x) into exp (x * C1), where C1 = log (C).
>
> I don't think you can do that for non-positive C.
Hmm, the question is also how this interacts
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> This patch simplifies pow (C, x) into exp (x * C1), where C1 = log (C).
I don't think you can do that for non-positive C.
> Do this only for fast-math as accuracy is reduced. This is much faster
> since pow is more complex than exp - with a current
This patch simplifies pow (C, x) into exp (x * C1), where C1 = log (C).
Do this only for fast-math as accuracy is reduced. This is much faster
since pow is more complex than exp - with a current GLIBC the speedup
is more than 7 times for this transformation.
ChangeLog:
2017-08-04 Wilco Dijkstra