From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-74459-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 77694 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2016 22:06:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 77677 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2016 22:06:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 22:06:00 -0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Steve Ellcey <sellcey@caviumnetworks.com>
CC: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Speed up math/test-tgmath2.c
In-Reply-To: <1478296927.4630.32.camel@caviumnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611042205560.19848@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <1477354555.8523.78.camel@caviumnetworks.com>   <1478280156.4630.18.camel@caviumnetworks.com>   <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611041724170.25235@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>  <1478293571.4630.29.camel@caviumnetworks.com>  <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611042125340.19848@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <1478296927.4630.32.camel@caviumnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="-1152306461-170239516-1478297167=:19848"
X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To
 svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1)
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2

---1152306461-170239516-1478297167=:19848
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-length: 764

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Steve Ellcey wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 21:26 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Here is a modified and retested patch.
> > The expression ORing together lots of function call results has 
> > indeterminate order of evaluation.  While the test should work
> > running the 
> > test functions in any order, on the whole I think it would be better
> > to 
> > make the order determinate, by doing
> > 
> > result = test_cos (vint1, vllong1);
> > result |= test_fabs (vint1, vllong1);
> > 
> > etc.
> 
> Having a determinate order of execution would make it easier when
> analyzing a failure.  Here is a new version.

This version is OK.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
---1152306461-170239516-1478297167=:19848--