On 5/12/2013 9:53 AM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:14:31PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
On 11/05/13 17:20, jacob navia wrote:
Le 11/05/13 16:01, Ondřej Bílka a écrit :
As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
rigth.
cat "
#include
int main(){ in
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:14:31PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/05/13 17:20, jacob navia wrote:
> >Le 11/05/13 16:01, Ondřej Bílka a écrit :
> >>As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
> >>rigth.
> >>
> >>cat "
> >>#include
> >>
> >>int main(){ int i;
> >> do
On 11/05/13 17:20, jacob navia wrote:
Le 11/05/13 16:01, Ondřej Bílka a écrit :
As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
rigth.
cat "
#include
int main(){ int i;
double x=0;
double ret=0;
double f;
for(i=0;i<1000;i++){
ret+=sin(x);
x+
On 05/11/2013 11:25 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 5/11/2013 11:20 AM, jacob navia wrote:
OK I did a similar thing. I just compiled sin(argc) in main.
The results prove that you were right. The single fsin instruction
takes longer than several HUNDRED instructions (calls, jumps
table lookup what ha
On 5/11/2013 11:20 AM, jacob navia wrote:
OK I did a similar thing. I just compiled sin(argc) in main.
The results prove that you were right. The single fsin instruction
takes longer than several HUNDRED instructions (calls, jumps
table lookup what have you)
Gone are the times when an fsin woul
Le 11/05/13 16:01, Ondřej Bílka a écrit :
As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
rigth.
cat "
#include
int main(){ int i;
double x=0;
double ret=0;
double f;
for(i=0;i<1000;i++){
ret+=sin(x);
x+=0.3;
}
return ret;
}
" > sin.c
On 5/11/2013 10:46 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
rigth.
Right, probably you should have done that before posting
anything! (I leave the experiment up to you!)
And of course this experiment says nothing about accuracy!
As 1) only way is measure that. Compile following an we will see who is
rigth.
Right, probably you should have done that before posting
anything! (I leave the experiment up to you!)
cat "
#include
int main(){ int i;
double x=0;
double ret=0;
double f;
for(i=0;i<1000;i++){
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:34:37AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 5:42 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> >1) The fsin instruction is ONE instruction! The sin routine is (at
> >least) thousand instructions!
> > Even if the fsin instruction itself is "slow" it should be thousand
> >times fas
On 5/11/2013 5:42 AM, jacob navia wrote:
1) The fsin instruction is ONE instruction! The sin routine is (at
least) thousand instructions!
Even if the fsin instruction itself is "slow" it should be thousand
times faster than the
complicated routine gcc calls.
2) The FPU is at 64 bits ma
Le 11/05/13 11:30, Marc Glisse a écrit :
On Sat, 11 May 2013, jacob navia wrote:
Hi
When caculating the cos/sinus, gcc generates a call to a complicated
routine that takes several thousand instructions to execute.
Suppose the value is stored in some XMM register, say xmm0 and the
result sh
Le 11/05/13 11:20, Oleg Endo a écrit :
Hi,
This question is not appropriate for this mailing list.
Please take any further discussions to the gcc-help mailing list.
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 11:15 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
Hi
When caculating the cos/sinus, gcc generates a call to a complicated
ro
On Sat, 11 May 2013, jacob navia wrote:
Hi
When caculating the cos/sinus, gcc generates a call to a complicated routine
that takes several thousand instructions to execute.
Suppose the value is stored in some XMM register, say xmm0 and the result
should be in another xmm register, say xmm1.
Hi,
This question is not appropriate for this mailing list.
Please take any further discussions to the gcc-help mailing list.
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 11:15 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> Hi
>
> When caculating the cos/sinus, gcc generates a call to a complicated
> routine that takes several thousand
14 matches
Mail list logo
