On 8/22/18 6:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:27 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 08/21/2018 02:08 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
Just as an example, compare the results for
x = 0x1.fp1023
>>>
>>> Thank you for your answer and the counterexam
>
> Ah, a runtime test. That'd be sufficient. The cost when we can't do
> the transformation is relatively small, but the gains when we can are huge.
Thank you. I will update the patch and send it again :-)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 06:02 AM, Richard Bien
On 08/22/2018 06:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:27 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 08/21/2018 02:08 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
Just as an example, compare the results for
x = 0x1.fp1023
>>>
>>> Thank you for your answer and the counter
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:27 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 08/21/2018 02:08 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
> >> Just as an example, compare the results for
> >> x = 0x1.fp1023
> >
> > Thank you for your answer and the counterexample. :-)
> >
> >> If we had useful range info
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> The problem is our VRP implementation doesn't handle any floating point
> types at this time. If we had range information for FP types, then
> this kind of analysis is precisely what we'd need to do the
> transformation regardless of -ffast-math.
I don't t
On 08/21/2018 02:08 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
>> Just as an example, compare the results for
>> x = 0x1.fp1023
>
> Thank you for your answer and the counterexample. :-)
>
>> If we had useful range info on floats we might conditionalize such
>> transforms appropriate
> Just as an example, compare the results for
> x = 0x1.fp1023
Thank you for your answer and the counterexample. :-)
> If we had useful range info on floats we might conditionalize such
> transforms appropriately. Or we can enable it on floats and do
> the sqrt (x*x + 1) in double.
On 08/21/2018 02:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:40 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 08/04/2018 07:22 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
>>> Closes bug #86829
>>>
>>> Description: Adds substitution rules for both sin(atan(x)) and
>>> cos(atan(x)). These formulas are r
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:40 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 08/04/2018 07:22 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
> > Closes bug #86829
> >
> > Description: Adds substitution rules for both sin(atan(x)) and
> > cos(atan(x)). These formulas are replaced by x / sqrt(x*x + 1) and 1 /
> > sqrt(x*x
On 08/04/2018 07:22 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
> Closes bug #86829
>
> Description: Adds substitution rules for both sin(atan(x)) and
> cos(atan(x)). These formulas are replaced by x / sqrt(x*x + 1) and 1 /
> sqrt(x*x + 1) respectively, providing up to 10x speedup. This identity
ping
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
wrote:
> Closes bug #86829
>
> Description: Adds substitution rules for both sin(atan(x)) and
> cos(atan(x)). These formulas are replaced by x / sqrt(x*x + 1) and 1 /
> sqrt(x*x + 1) respectively, providing up to 10x speedup.
11 matches
Mail list logo
