Re: [Info], Add suport for PowerPC IEEE 128-bit floating point

2014-07-17 Thread Michael Meissner
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:50:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:20:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I did some timing tests to compare the new PowerPC IEEE 128-bit results to > > the > > current implementation of long double using the IBM extended format. >

Re: [Info], Add suport for PowerPC IEEE 128-bit floating point

2014-07-16 Thread Michael Meissner
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:50:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:20:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I did some timing tests to compare the new PowerPC IEEE 128-bit results to > > the > > current implementation of long double using the IBM extended format. >

Re: [Info], Add suport for PowerPC IEEE 128-bit floating point

2014-07-15 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:20:31PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > I did some timing tests to compare the new PowerPC IEEE 128-bit results to the > current implementation of long double using the IBM extended format. > > The test consisted a short loop doing the operation over arrays of 1,024 > e

Re: [Info], Add suport for PowerPC IEEE 128-bit floating point

2014-07-15 Thread Michael Meissner
I did some timing tests to compare the new PowerPC IEEE 128-bit results to the current implementation of long double using the IBM extended format. The test consisted a short loop doing the operation over arrays of 1,024 elements, reading in two values, doing the operation, and then storing it bac