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
