From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Patrick McGehearty <patrick.mcgehearty@oracle.com>
Cc: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v11 Improves __ieee754_exp() performance by greater than 5x on sparc/x86.
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:41:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802141635530.5069@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b3eca297-3aaf-6d71-c556-71b739bb2d1e@oracle.com>
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Patrick McGehearty wrote:
> Any thoughts on general principles on how to decide which patch
> to accept, given both seem much more better than the existing code?
My understanding would be that Szabolcs intends (as per
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00065.html> and
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00061.html>) to eliminate
rounding mode changes from the present exp, and possibly make other
speedups there. Then the final result of such speedups would need
comparing with a version of your patch that also eliminates rounding mode
changes (and updates libm-test-ulps expectations for other functions in
non-default rounding modes as needed to avoid introducing failures). It
would be best to have a precise statement of what "both my throughput and
latency benchmarks" are in
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00061.html>, to make sure
there is a common basis of comparison so we can see if it's really the
case that one version is faster on some architectures and another on other
architectures, or whether different people are measuring different things.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-14 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-08 11:40 [PATCH] v11 Improves __ieee754_exp() performance by greater than 5x on sparc/x86 Wilco Dijkstra
2018-02-14 1:18 ` Patrick McGehearty
2018-02-14 16:41 ` Joseph Myers [this message]
2018-02-14 20:05 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-02-22 19:22 ` Szabolcs Nagy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-29 21:44 Patrick McGehearty
2018-02-02 14:40 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-02-02 15:33 ` Joseph Myers
2018-02-02 16:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-02-07 19:19 ` Patrick McGehearty
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.20.1802141635530.5069@digraph.polyomino.org.uk \
--to=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=patrick.mcgehearty@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).