From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101946 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2018 17:17:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 101937 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jul 2018 17:17:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=danger, Who, integration X-HELO: EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=W+SxWoT9DL6OjDACAhBv0G1h3evIxskG7YdKTPoJP78=; b=ayJg1hnV5a/soOvwveYZ26b67AwrErcPO2TItd89xEPFg0Fkpd2OM5au8OH7yRA/cVttdjp1UqkGVcT4XHJ396w2dWUtaBiG5rx8dHK62bUrLh3C5Ztnz9W3ynftJHNTd2Pc+e083vahNnHEKYjEgVrE0B4NYLQKZ1lqAjDcbow= Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com; Cc: nd@arm.com, Wilco Dijkstra , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Optimized math routines To: Carlos O'Donell , GNU C Library References: <50b1b8b6-d03c-224f-31ff-8cf9d8268b6d@redhat.com> From: Szabolcs Nagy Message-ID: Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 17:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: szabolcs.nagy@arm.com Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 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.)