Searched hist:176467 (Results 1 - 4 of 4) sorted by relevance
| /freebsd-10.2-release/lib/msun/ld128/ | ||
| H A D | e_rem_pio2l.h | diff 176467 Fri Feb 22 18:43:23 MST 2008 bde Avoid using FP-to-integer conversion for !(amd64 || i386) too. Use the FP-to-FP method to round to an integer on all arches, and convert this to an int using FP-to-integer conversion iff irint() is not available. This is cleaner and works well on at least ia64, where it saves 20-30 cycles or about 10% on average for 9Pi/4 < |x| <= 32pi/2 (should be similar up to 2**19pi/2, but I only tested the smaller range). After the previous commit to e_rem_pio2.c removed the "quick check no cancellation" non-optimization, the result of the FP-to-integer conversion is not needed so early, so using irint() became a much smaller optimization than when it was committed. An earlier commit message said that cos, cosf, sin and sinf were equally fast on amd64 and i386 except for cos and sin on i386. Actually, cos and sin on amd64 are equally fast to cosf and sinf on i386 (~88 cycles), while cosf and sinf on amd64 are not quite equally slow to cos and sin on i386 (average 115 cycles with more variance). |
| /freebsd-10.2-release/lib/msun/ld80/ | ||
| H A D | e_rem_pio2l.h | diff 176467 Fri Feb 22 18:43:23 MST 2008 bde Avoid using FP-to-integer conversion for !(amd64 || i386) too. Use the FP-to-FP method to round to an integer on all arches, and convert this to an int using FP-to-integer conversion iff irint() is not available. This is cleaner and works well on at least ia64, where it saves 20-30 cycles or about 10% on average for 9Pi/4 < |x| <= 32pi/2 (should be similar up to 2**19pi/2, but I only tested the smaller range). After the previous commit to e_rem_pio2.c removed the "quick check no cancellation" non-optimization, the result of the FP-to-integer conversion is not needed so early, so using irint() became a much smaller optimization than when it was committed. An earlier commit message said that cos, cosf, sin and sinf were equally fast on amd64 and i386 except for cos and sin on i386. Actually, cos and sin on amd64 are equally fast to cosf and sinf on i386 (~88 cycles), while cosf and sinf on amd64 are not quite equally slow to cos and sin on i386 (average 115 cycles with more variance). |
| /freebsd-10.2-release/lib/msun/src/ | ||
| H A D | e_rem_pio2.c | diff 176467 Fri Feb 22 18:43:23 MST 2008 bde Avoid using FP-to-integer conversion for !(amd64 || i386) too. Use the FP-to-FP method to round to an integer on all arches, and convert this to an int using FP-to-integer conversion iff irint() is not available. This is cleaner and works well on at least ia64, where it saves 20-30 cycles or about 10% on average for 9Pi/4 < |x| <= 32pi/2 (should be similar up to 2**19pi/2, but I only tested the smaller range). After the previous commit to e_rem_pio2.c removed the "quick check no cancellation" non-optimization, the result of the FP-to-integer conversion is not needed so early, so using irint() became a much smaller optimization than when it was committed. An earlier commit message said that cos, cosf, sin and sinf were equally fast on amd64 and i386 except for cos and sin on i386. Actually, cos and sin on amd64 are equally fast to cosf and sinf on i386 (~88 cycles), while cosf and sinf on amd64 are not quite equally slow to cos and sin on i386 (average 115 cycles with more variance). |
| H A D | e_rem_pio2f.c | diff 176467 Fri Feb 22 18:43:23 MST 2008 bde Avoid using FP-to-integer conversion for !(amd64 || i386) too. Use the FP-to-FP method to round to an integer on all arches, and convert this to an int using FP-to-integer conversion iff irint() is not available. This is cleaner and works well on at least ia64, where it saves 20-30 cycles or about 10% on average for 9Pi/4 < |x| <= 32pi/2 (should be similar up to 2**19pi/2, but I only tested the smaller range). After the previous commit to e_rem_pio2.c removed the "quick check no cancellation" non-optimization, the result of the FP-to-integer conversion is not needed so early, so using irint() became a much smaller optimization than when it was committed. An earlier commit message said that cos, cosf, sin and sinf were equally fast on amd64 and i386 except for cos and sin on i386. Actually, cos and sin on amd64 are equally fast to cosf and sinf on i386 (~88 cycles), while cosf and sinf on amd64 are not quite equally slow to cos and sin on i386 (average 115 cycles with more variance). |
Completed in 127 milliseconds