On 2005-05-26 14:40:33 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> I thought the x86 sin/cos intrinsics were unsafe. ie. they don't
> gave accurate results in all cases.
Yes, and here, this is a bug. See:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040409144725/http://www.naturalbridge.com/floatingpoint/intelfp.html
--
Vincen
Paul Brook wrote:
> I thought the x86 sin/cos intrinsics were unsafe. ie. they don't gave
> accurate
> results in all cases.
If memory serves, Intel's fsin (for example) has an error > 1 ulp for
value flose to multiples of pi (2pi, for example).
Now, I'm not certain this is true for the K8 and
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 26 May 2005 14:25, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
| > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >>May I be so bold as to suggest that -funsafe-math-optimizations be
| > >>reduced in scope to perform exactly what it's name implies:
| > >>transfo
On Thursday 26 May 2005 14:25, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>May I be so bold as to suggest that -funsafe-math-optimizations be
> >>reduced in scope to perform exactly what it's name implies:
> >>transformations that may slightly alter the meanding of c
Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>May I be so bold as to suggest that -funsafe-math-optimizations be
>>reduced in scope to perform exactly what it's name implies:
>>transformations that may slightly alter the meanding of code. Then move
>>the use of hardware intrinsics to a new -fhardw
On 5/26/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> >>Yes. I still don't understand why gcc doesn't do -ffast-math by
> >>default like all other compilers.
>
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > No! And I really don't think that other compilers do that.
> > It would b
Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>Yes. I still don't understand why gcc doesn't do -ffast-math by
>>default like all other compilers.
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> No! And I really don't think that other compilers do that.
> It would be very bad, would not conform to the C standard[*]
> and would make lot
