This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@oss.sgi.com> Date: 15 Apr 2000 21:53:34 -0700 --- libc-clean/manual/math.texi Sun Oct 31 09:19:58 1999 +++ glibc-2.2/manual/math.texi Sat Apr 15 20:09:59 2000 @@ -1770,9 +1770,10 @@ can increase the speed of generated code significantly. The drawback is that code size will increase, and the increase is not always negligible. -The speed increase has one drawback: the inline functions might not set -@code{errno} and might not have the same precission as the library -functions. +There are two kind of inline functions: Those that give the same result +as the library functions and others that might not set @code{errno} and +might not have the same precission as the library functions. The latter +are only available if the flag @code{-ffast-math} is given to GNU CC. Apart from the obvious misspelling (precission), the bit [Others that] might not have the same precision as the library functions. is a bit vague. This probably raises the question: what gives the best precision? Is there an easy answer to this? A cross-reference to the GCC manual would be nice too :-). Mark
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |