From owner-freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Thu Mar 9 15:35:25 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-numerics@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20036D05175 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:35:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "troutmask", Issuer "troutmask" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0673636E for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:35:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id v29FZO8g033424 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 07:35:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v29FZNpC033420; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 07:35:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 07:35:23 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Bruce Evans Cc: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bit twiddling question Message-ID: <20170309153523.GA33379@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: <20170308202417.GA23103@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20170309173152.F1269@besplex.bde.org> <20170309075236.GA30199@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20170309152307.GA32781@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170309152307.GA32781@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-BeenThere: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of high quality implementation of libm functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 15:35:25 -0000 On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:23:07AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > if (ix < 0x43300000) { /* 1 <= |x| < 0x1p52 */ > double volatile vx; > uint32_t n; > vx = ax + 0x1p52; > vx = vx - 0x1p52; > if (vx == ax) return(0); > if (vx > UINT32_MAX) { /* ax = m + n + r with m + n */ > vx -= UINT32_MAX; /* m = UINT32_MAX. n is in range */ > ax -= UINT32_MAX; > } > n = (uint32_t)vx; > ax = __compute_sinpi(ax - n); > if (n & 1) ax = -ax; > return ((hx & 0x80000000) ? -ax : ax); > } > We don't even need to use UINT32_MAX. We can do something like if (vx > 0x1p30) { vx -= 0x1p30; ax -= 0x1p30; } so there is no conversion from uint32_t to double. We also probably want to minimize access to a volatile, so we would have y = vx - 0x1p52 and use y afterwards. -- Steve 20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow