From owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 28 11:55:44 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D43919;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 11:55:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9438F238;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 11:55:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk (c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.18.120])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4SBtccK042149
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
 Tue, 28 May 2013 11:55:39 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148
From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130528205441.U2294@besplex.bde.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:55:34 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C7367F2D-0A97-422E-97B1-4AF4BFEDD526@FreeBSD.org>
References: <501204AD.30605@missouri.edu>
 <20120727032611.GB25690@server.rulingia.com>
 <20120728125824.GA26553@server.rulingia.com> <501460BB.30806@missouri.edu>
 <20120728231300.GA20741@server.rulingia.com> <50148F02.4020104@missouri.edu>
 <20120729222706.GA29048@server.rulingia.com> <5015BB9F.90807@missouri.edu>
 <20130528043205.GA3282@zim.MIT.EDU> <20130528155933.V1298@besplex.bde.org>
 <20130528081921.GB13594@zim.MIT.EDU> <20130528205441.U2294@besplex.bde.org>
To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>,
 Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.org,
 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>,
 David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>,
 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of high quality implementation of libm functions."
 <freebsd-numerics.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-numerics>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-numerics>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-numerics>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:55:44 -0000

On 28 May 2013, at 12:12, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Inlining the big function do_hard_work() helps for gcc on
> amd64 (about 5% faster), but makes no significant difference for =
clang.
> The previous testing was mostly with gcc.

How are you inlining?  With the C99 inline keyword, which changes the =
linkage type but only provides and advisory hint to the compiler with =
regard to inlining (which, in a modern compiler, is largely ignored), or =
with the always_inline attribute, which forces the compiler to inline =
the function?

David