From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20166 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2007 16:09:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 20094 invoked by uid 48); 21 Mar 2007 16:09:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070321160908.20093.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/31249] pseudo-optimzation with sincos/cexpi In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg02058.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-03-21 16:09 ------- > It would be nice to know whether darwin does not implement cexp in an optimal way ... I have forgotten to mention that I did some (quick) profiling: cexp seens trivially implemented. It calls sin, cos and exp + the ABI problem mentionned by Andrew. It seems that any inplementation of cexp calling sin and cos would at best lead to a draw and more likely to a regression in timing. Now I cannot rule out that on some platforms cexp is implemented in a clever way, using some kind of sincos alrgorithm (this is what I would like to know). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249