Re: [PATCH][BZ #14412] Define __sincos_finite as a fast version of sincos

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com>]

On 29 April 2013 19:04, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> The changes don't seem to include accurate range reduction.  Without that,
> I think this is inappropriate, as it will result in wildly inaccurate
> results for large but finite inputs.

Right, I had overlooked that in my earlier submission.

> (I've stated before that all libm tests with finite inputs and outputs
> should be run with -ffinite-math-only - and I consider that they should
> pass when they pass without that option, and should not need different
> ulps for the different ways of running them.)

I wonder if this is a valid case for _fast implementations distinct
from the default implementation.  gcc could define a macro
(__FAST_MATH__ or similar) when called with -ffast-math.  This gives
us the necessary fast and not-so-accurate implementations that a lot
of people seem to want.  I had assumed that __FINITE_MATH_ONLY__ was
the right place for it, but Andreas pointed out that by definition, it
is not.

Siddhesh
--
http://siddhesh.in