f and went
right for the flames. So refreshing to hear the IGLU people be so creative.
P.S.
Nadav - I have some GDB sessions on VHS, if you like.
Nadav Har'El wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
>SPARC32":
>
>>Ac
Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 25 Dec 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> > Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But who is John Galt? Speed is not of the outmost importance in
> > > this case, so I think my implementation is fine.
> >
> > Only you can judge that. It's no
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
SPARC32":
> Actually, I checked it against the numbers in the range 0 .. 1, which is
> my working range, and I discovered it returns very inaccurate results.
> With some input from Ehud Karni,
On 25 Dec 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But who is John Galt? Speed is not of the outmost importance in this case,
> > so I think my implementation is fine.
>
> Only you can judge that. It's not only speed - are you sure that
> whatever approximation
Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But who is John Galt? Speed is not of the outmost importance in this case,
> so I think my implementation is fine.
Only you can judge that. It's not only speed - are you sure that
whatever approximation you used (I have not looked at your perl code)
wil
On 25 Dec 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> "Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I bet that the Sparc code is obfuscated for a reason (typically,
> > such codes contain "magical" tables, for example) not just because
> > the programmer was an idiot.
>
> Mathematical algorithms are usuall
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I bet that the Sparc code is obfuscated for a reason (typically,
> such codes contain "magical" tables, for example) not just because
> the programmer was an idiot.
Mathematical algorithms are usually very heavily optimized by hand,
loops unrolled, sc
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to understand the "tricks" usually used to calculated "special
> functions", like log (or sin or bessel functions, or whatever), you might
> want to take a look at books like "Numerical Recipes in C" (includes an
> interesting introduction
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 13:23:20 +0200 (IST), Shlomi Fish
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI, I eventually gave up and coded a logarithm function in perl:
>
> #
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> use strict;
>
> my $e_const = exp(1);
> my $e_const_reci = (1/$e_const);
>
> my $number = shift |
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
SPARC32":
> I think they do. Congrats for Intel. Even though from what I understood of
> the glibc code the log() is a base 2 logarithm for some reason. (even
> though the tailor series is for lo
Hi
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
>SPARC32":
> > Actually, usually glibc calls the processor's FPU logarithm routine.
>
> Oops, I didn&
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > Actually, usually glibc calls the processor's FPU logarithm routine.
>
> What about an i386 without an FPU? (an ancient 386 with no 80387, for
> instance)
>
In that case, I thinks it emulates the FPU unit.
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Actually, usually glibc calls the processor's FPU logarithm routine.
What about an i386 without an FPU? (an ancient 386 with no 80387, for
instance)
--
Tzafrir Cohen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
>SPARC32":
> > Actually, usually glibc calls the processor's FPU logarithm routine.
>
> Oops, I didn't know the 386DX's FP
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Implementation of log(x) for
SPARC32":
> Actually, usually glibc calls the processor's FPU logarithm routine.
Oops, I didn't know the 386DX's FPU had a logarithm function on it... Nice :)
Do they also have things
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Implementation of log(x) for SPARC32":
> > I need an implementation of the C function double log(double x) for SPARC
> > (32-bit - not UltraSPARC) written using Assembler or
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Implementation of log(x) for SPARC32":
> I need an implementation of the C function double log(double x) for SPARC
> (32-bit - not UltraSPARC) written using Assembler or C or a combination of
> both.
>
> I tried to rip code
Hi!
I need an implementation of the C function double log(double x) for SPARC
(32-bit - not UltraSPARC) written using Assembler or C or a combination of
both.
I tried to rip code out of the glibc (which I was succesfully able to do
with the i386 architecture), but I could not make sense of what
18 matches
Mail list logo
