Hi,
For readability (and correctness) I'm interested in rewriting a bunch of:
(define_insn_reservation "insn1" 0 (eq_attr "attr1" "val1,val2"))
into something like:
(define attr "consattr1" "val1,val2"
(const (cond [
(eq_attr "attr1" "val1") (const_string "cvaly")
(eq_attr "
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> ... Notice how the one in invoke.texi has an additional invariant
> section? What's up with this?
It looks like Ralf's 2008-07-30 commit (r138293) omitted to change
invoke.texi.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
> On 2012-02-09 12:36:01 -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
>> I think it would make sense to have a check list of properties, and
>> use configure-based tests to categorize implementations. These tests
>> would be added as we go along.
>>
>> Criteria:
>>
>> [ ] Conforms to C99 for exceptional values
>
Okay, I'm really puzzled by this. The source for gcc.1,
gcc/doc/invoke.texi, begins thus:
> @c Copyright (C) 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
> @c 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
> @c Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> @c This is part
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Furthermore, crlibm_init changes the i?86/x86_64 rounding mode globally,
> that is not appropriate for a general purpose math library, there you either
> need to cope with extended precision, or rely on SSE/SSE2 for float/double,
> or change the rounding
On 2012-02-10 17:41:49 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 05:31 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> > it would be also nice to see functions for reducing argument range in
> > public api.
> > finally the end-user can use e.g. sin(reduce(x)) to get the best precision
> > with some declared cpu overhe
On 2012-02-09 15:49:37 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I'd start with INRIA's crlibm.
I point I'd like to correct. GNU MPFR has mainly (> 95%) been
developed by researchers and engineers paid by INRIA. But this
is not the case of CRlibm. I don't know its copyright status
(apparently, mainly ENS Lyon,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:48:05PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > I think there is some consensus that crlibm is a great place to start
>> > for correctly-rounded elementary functions. I think we'd need, or at
>> > least greatly appreci
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:48:05PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I think there is some consensus that crlibm is a great place to start
> > for correctly-rounded elementary functions. I think we'd need, or at
> > least greatly appreciate, some help from your team.
>
> I agree. If crlibm can
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Also note that CRlibm supports the 4 rounding modes, while the
> IBM Accurate Mathematical Library currently used in glibc behaves
> erratically (e.g. can even crash) on directed rounding modes.
FWIW the proposed ISO C bindings to IEEE 754-2008 (still
On 2012-02-09 12:36:01 -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
> I think it would make sense to have a check list of properties, and
> use configure-based tests to categorize implementations. These tests
> would be added as we go along.
>
> Criteria:
>
> [ ] Conforms to C99 for exceptional values
> (acc
On 2012-02-09 17:18:25 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The crlibm approach, involving exhaustive searches for worst cases for
> directed rounding, could as I understand it work for functions of one
> float, double or 80-bit long double argument, but I think the exhaustive
> searches are still in
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 01:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-02-09 16:01:48 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2012 03:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
Maybe. Nothing would prevent us from composing from multiple sources
of course
On 02/13/2012 01:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-09 16:01:48 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 02/09/2012 03:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> Maybe. Nothing would prevent us from composing from multiple sources
>>> of course. crlibm also only provides double precision routines.
>>
>>
On 2012-02-09 16:01:48 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 03:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2012 03:56 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>>
> On 02/09/2012 03:2
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 05:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>>> I don't agree having such a libm is the ultimate goal. It could be
>>> a first step along the way, addressing correctness issues.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:00:43 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 08:57 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> However, there's a failure to combine looking like: (parallel [
>> (set (reg:QI 1 AL)
>> (ior:QI (mem/c/i:QI (reg/f:QI 4 AP) [2 y+0 S1 A16])
>> (reg:Q
17 matches
Mail list logo
