Hi,
maybe http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ecetr/123/ would also be interesting for you.
There, a quadratic algorithm for finding a nearly optimal set of compiler
flags is described. The results are quite promising and i have also tested it
on my own benchmarkingsuite with good results.
cu,
Ronny
4.1.1). So the
quadratic nature of the algorithm can be quite painful, but it gives better
results than the linear approach.
cu,
Ronny Peine
pgpVqQpBRZlaN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Well, i'm studying mathematics and as i know so far 0^0 is always 1 (for
real and complex numbers) and well defined even in numerical and
theoretical mathematics. Could you point me to some publications which
say other things?
cu, Ronny
Duncan Sands wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 10:51 -0500, Rob
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
0^0 = lim A->0, A>0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1 if exp(X*ln(A)) is continual continued
The complex case can be derived from this (0^(0+ib) = 0^0*0^ib = 1 =
0^a*0^(i*0) ).
Well, i kno
Hi,
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-03-08, at 01:47, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
How cute.
if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
0^0 = lim A->0, A>0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1 if exp(X*ln(A)) is continual
continued
Th
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:47:13AM +0100, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
That is an incomplete definition, as 0^X is well-defined.
0^0 = lim A->0, A>0 (e
Ronny Peine wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:47:13AM +0100, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
That is an incomplete definition, as 0^X is well-defined.
0^0 = lim A
not preserved).
I don't know of any standard which defines this to 0.
Robert Dewar wrote:
Ronny Peine wrote:
Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here)
But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far.
Were these math classes, or CS classes.
Gen
t's 1 (and will always be 1).
cu,
Ronny
Ronny Peine wrote:
Well, these were math lectures (Analysis 1,2 and 3, Function Theory,
Numerical Mathematics and so on). In every lectures it was defined as 1
and in most cases mathematical expressions are mostly tried to transform
in equivalent
= 1.0, not Nan;"
I'm not really sure if he means that it should be 1.0 or it should be
NaN but i think he means 1.0.
Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small example often used in mathematics and electronic engineering:
the geometric row ("Reihe" in german, i don't know the
Well this article was referenced by http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/,
so i don't think it's an unreliable source.
It would be nice if you wouldn't try to insult me Joe Buck, that's not
very productive.
Robert Dewar wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Are we a bit too obedient today? Look I was talk
Well, you are right, this discussion becomes a bit off topic.
I think 0^0 should be 1 in the complex case, too. Otherwise the complex
and real definitions would collide.
Example:
use complex number 0+i*0 then this should be handled equivalent to the
real number 0. Otherwise the programmer would get
who don't believe 0^0 = 1
in the real case.
cu, Ronny
Robert Dewar wrote:
Ronny Peine wrote:
Well this article was referenced by
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/, so i don't think it's an
unreliable source.
Since Kahan is one of the primary movers behind 754 that's not
This proof is absolutely correct and in no way bogus, it is lectured to
nearly every mathematics student PERIOD
But you are right, if the standards handles this otherwise, then this
doesn't help in any case.
Robert Dewar wrote:
Ronny Peine wrote:
I hope that this make things clearer for
Hi,
Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Dewar) wrote on 07.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ronny Peine wrote:
Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here)
But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far.
Were these math classe
Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Ronny Peine
Sent: 16 March 2005 17:34
See for example:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentLaws.html
Ok, I did.
Even though, gcc returns 1 for pow(0.0,0.0) in version 3.4.3 like many
other c-compiler do. The same behaviour would be expected
more. I hope this will help track the performance of code
generated by gcc and help gcc getting better in this afford. Constructiv
critics is always welcomed. I hope you guys keep up your work on improving
gcc.
Thanks for reading,
Ronny Peine
Hi,
i forgot to post the best cflags for each gcc-version and benchmark.
Here are the results:
gcc-3.3.6:
nbench: -s -static -O3 -march=athlon-xp -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe
-fforce-addr -fsched-spec-load -fmove-all-movables -ffast-math -ftracer
-funroll-loops -funroll-all-loops -mfpmath=sse -mo
Hi,
Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2005 19:50 schrieb Sebastian Pop:
> Ronny Peine wrote:
> > -ftree-loop-linear is removed from the testingflags in gcc-4.0.2 because
> > it leads to an endless loop in neural net in nbench.
>
> Could you fill a bug report for this one?
Done.
cu,
Ronny Peine
h.
The bugreport is a duplicate of 20256, as i have written into bugzilla.
The source extracted in 20256 is nearly the same as the 'neural net'
benchmark.
The next time i write a bugreport, i should more concentrate on it, sorry
again for this.
cu,
Ronny Peine
Hi all,
i'm going into holiday and i wish you all of the gcc-team a happy christmas
and thanks for all your work, even though it is still to early for christmas
wishes :).
cu,
Ronny Peine
Hi,
my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? The Thomson
Algorithm creates an epsilon-NFA which needs quite a lot of memory. The
element construction creates an NFA directly and therefor has fewer states.
Well, this is only interesting in the scanner creation which is no
Am Freitag, 10. August 2007 schrieben Sie:
> To me, very fast (millions of lines a second) lexical analyzers are
> trivial to write by hand, and I really don't see the point of tools,
> and certainly not the utility of any theory in writing such code.
> If anything the formalism of a finite state m
23 matches
Mail list logo
