This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Sorry, I assumed someone else (Carlos?) was reviewing this and then > forgot about it. I've put review comments inline. The major concern I > have is that you're duplicating contents of math_private.h to compare > it against the gcc builtins, which is fine as a first hack if you want > to avoid changing actual code for the tests, but may not be a good idea > in the long term. That is, there is a risk that the inlines may be > modified but this test doesn't realize that. > > I don't mind this going in as a first revision (with other changes > recommended below) provided you're willing to remedy this situation in > the next iteration so that there is at least a failure in running the > benchtest if the definitions of the inlines change in any way. I previously posted a patch to enable inlines in math.h which replace the GLIBC internal inlines. I also posted a patch to rename all uses of __isinf_ns to isinf so they also use the new inline. I am going to post a patch remove all the math_private inlines as they are never used after these changes. So these functions are not duplicated, and it is necessary to add a copy to benchmark the old implementation. Ie. the only duplication is EXTRACT_WORDS64, which seems fairly minor. I've updated my patch with your other comments, see attached. Wilco
Attachment:
0001-Add-bench-math-inlines.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |