From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: N8TM@aol.com
To: moshier@mediaone.net
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: type based aliasing again
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:33:00 -0000
Message-id: <565ff2be.25150aa0@aol.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00791.html

In a message dated 9/18/99 9:30:18 AM EST, moshier@mediaone.net writes:

> Surely glibc should not give different math.h answers depending on
>  compiler optimization!  
They try to deal with this by making the library versions of math functions 
the same as the in-lined ones, except possibly for limiting cases.  For 
example, the paranoia test for the accuracy of pow(x,y) where x is near 1. 
and y is large shows exactly the same problems either way.  Not that it's 
clearly beneficial for pow() to in-line.

Tim

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: N8TM@aol.com
To: moshier@mediaone.net
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: type based aliasing again
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <565ff2be.25150aa0@aol.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00791.html
Message-ID: <19990930180200.07t4rYAbWzZ-4aikl6KzRbXw_QLqF7sZ1uQvTwdb5Tg@z>

In a message dated 9/18/99 9:30:18 AM EST, moshier@mediaone.net writes:

> Surely glibc should not give different math.h answers depending on
>  compiler optimization!  
They try to deal with this by making the library versions of math functions 
the same as the in-lined ones, except possibly for limiting cases.  For 
example, the paranoia test for the accuracy of pow(x,y) where x is near 1. 
and y is large shows exactly the same problems either way.  Not that it's 
clearly beneficial for pow() to in-line.

Tim