From owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 28 13:03:13 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 A5D60ADE;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 13:03:13 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au)
Received: from mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au
 [211.29.132.249])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C2E8A2;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 13:03:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au
 (c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.156.23])
 by mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D79C104139F;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 22:44:57 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:44:22 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org
To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148
In-Reply-To: <C7367F2D-0A97-422E-97B1-4AF4BFEDD526@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20130528222541.N2926@besplex.bde.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>
 <C7367F2D-0A97-422E-97B1-4AF4BFEDD526@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Optus-CM-Score: 0
X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=e/de0tV/ c=1 sm=1 a=O6A2dy7pM2IA:10
 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=PO7r1zJSAAAA:8 a=JzwRw_2MAAAA:8 a=Zc3-fPm5GV4A:10
 a=jpvodMJeLT64p2G4esEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ebeQFi2P/qHVC0Yw9JDJ4g==:117
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 13:03:13 -0000

On Tue, 28 May 2013, David Chisnall wrote:

> 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?

Only static inlining in catrig*.c.  All compilers follow its hints there.
libm sometimes uses static __always_inline instead of static inline
elsewhere (but mostly not).

Bruce