On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> What if the existing operations were already exact?
>>
>> They aren't -- the builder makes them non-exact by default, and we
>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> What if the existing operations were already exact?
>
> They aren't -- the builder makes them non-exact by default, and we
> initialize the builder ourselves in this pass.
Hmm...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> What if the existing operations were already exact?
They aren't -- the builder makes them non-exact by default, and we
initialize the builder ourselves in this pass.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> The floating
What if the existing operations were already exact?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> The floating-point operations used to implement these have been
> carefully chosen to minimize rounding error while still getting decent
> performance. We don't want any optimizations to m
The floating-point operations used to implement these have been
carefully chosen to minimize rounding error while still getting decent
performance. We don't want any optimizations to mess with them. While
this shouldn't affect anything now, it seems like a good idea.
Signed-off-by: Connor Abbott
