On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Not to be too negative (I am curious about this), but does this sort of
> optimization really carry its own weight? Is this a common thing in
> numeric code or something like that?
> Tom
I don't know that optimizing lgamma by itself makes a big difference
> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kaveh> I'm doing this at the tree level, so AIUI I have to be mindful of type,
Kaveh> scope and conflicts. I also have to decide what to do in non-C.
There's nothing to do here for Java -- Java code can't access lgamma.
Not to be too ne
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 26 April 2007 16:26, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> > The builtin would run on the host at compile time, whereas the above
> > would run on the target at runtime. I presume he's talking about using
> > MPFR in the host compiler to simplify lgamma(constant), no
On 26 April 2007 16:26, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> On 25 April 2007 18:55, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to work on using MPFR to handle builtin lgamma.
>>
>> In what sense is it a builtin if it requires a library to be installed
>> and emits a call to a library func
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 25 April 2007 18:55, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
> > I'd like to work on using MPFR to handle builtin lgamma.
>
> In what sense is it a builtin if it requires a library to be installed and
> emits a call to a library function ??? I may not have understood what you're
> tryin
On 25 April 2007 18:55, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I'd like to work on using MPFR to handle builtin lgamma.
In what sense is it a builtin if it requires a library to be installed and
emits a call to a library function ??? I may not have understood what you're
trying to do here, but how would it b
