On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > While mathematically correct, these two optimizations result in an
> > expression with substantially lower precision than the original. For any
> > positive finite floating-point
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> While mathematically correct, these two optimizations result in an
> expression with substantially lower precision than the original. For any
> positive finite floating-point value, log2(x) is well-defined and finite.
> More precisely, it
While mathematically correct, these two optimizations result in an
expression with substantially lower precision than the original. For any
positive finite floating-point value, log2(x) is well-defined and finite.
More precisely, it is in the range [-150, 150] so any sum of logarithms
log2(a) + lo
