On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:26 AM, James Almer wrote:
On 12/25/2015 2:11 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:26 AM, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 12/25/2015 2:11 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
Fast, reasonably accurate 10^x. Alternative of detection of libm e
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:26 AM, James Almer wrote:
>> On 12/25/2015 2:11 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> Fast, reasonably accurate 10^x. Alternative of detection of libm exp10 at
>>> configure
>>> time is not worth the trouble, sinc
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:26 AM, James Almer wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 2:11 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> Fast, reasonably accurate 10^x. Alternative of detection of libm exp10 at
>> configure
>> time is not worth the trouble, since it is anyway not POSIX or ISO C,
>> and currently only the GNU l
On 12/25/2015 2:11 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> Fast, reasonably accurate 10^x. Alternative of detection of libm exp10 at
> configure
> time is not worth the trouble, since it is anyway not POSIX or ISO C,
> and currently only the GNU libm has it. Furthermore, GNU libm's variant
> is ~ 2x slowe
Fast, reasonably accurate 10^x. Alternative of detection of libm exp10 at
configure
time is not worth the trouble, since it is anyway not POSIX or ISO C,
and currently only the GNU libm has it. Furthermore, GNU libm's variant
is ~ 2x slower, and is ironically not correctly rounded (2 ulp off) to j
