Re: [PATCH 00/10] Optimized math routines

[Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>]

On 06/07/18 17:27, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 07/06/2018 11:46 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 06/07/18 13:43, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2018 04:47 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>> Optimized exp, exp2, log, log2, pow, sinf, cosf and sincosf
>>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> Is it your intent to have these included in 2.28?
>>>
>>
>> (resending as my previous mail seems to be lost)
>>
>> yes, i'd like to add it to the 'desirable in 2.28' list
>> if Joseph is ok with the code, but i see he is not available
>> right now for review.
>>
>> i don't know how other maintainers feel about such change,
>> there needs to be an ulp update (i'm willing to do that for
>> targets i can access hw for testing).
> 
> Where there any unanswered questions in your v4 review?
> 
> Do you think v4 is basically as good as it will get?
> 
> Who were the people who signed off on the review?
> 

Joseph Myers started the review of both the sinf, cosf, sincosf
changes and the exp, exp2, log, log2, pow changes.

I think I addressed all of his comments in an acceptable way,
but i don't know if he had other concerns or if parts of the
code he has not reviewed yet.

Since the glibc tests pass on 3 different targets (and
build-many-glibcs.py) i think there is no danger of the
patch being completely broken.  Wilco and I tested the patches
in detail outside of glibc so it is the glibc integration where
I expected most of the issues.

I don't expect performance regression on any target, but it
was not measured e.g. on powerpc (only aarch64 and x86_64)
which might have different behaviour (previous sincosf was
optimized on that target hence it might make sense to retest
the new code to be sure).

I think the patches are in a good quality state now.
(The ABI changing part needs further work so i didn't post that.)