From owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 28 11:12:12 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C31D5B;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 11:12:12 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au)
Received: from mail107.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail107.syd.optusnet.com.au
 [211.29.132.53]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5DAE92;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 11:12:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au
 (c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.156.23])
 by mail107.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F0D1D405D6;
 Tue, 28 May 2013 21:12:00 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:12:00 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org
To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148
In-Reply-To: <20130528081921.GB13594@zim.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <20130528205441.U2294@besplex.bde.org>
References: <501204AD.30605@missouri.edu>
 <20120727032611.GB25690@server.rulingia.com>
 <20120728125824.GA26553@server.rulingia.com> <501460BB.30806@missouri.edu>
 <20120728231300.GA20741@server.rulingia.com> <50148F02.4020104@missouri.edu>
 <20120729222706.GA29048@server.rulingia.com> <5015BB9F.90807@missouri.edu>
 <20130528043205.GA3282@zim.MIT.EDU> <20130528155933.V1298@besplex.bde.org>
 <20130528081921.GB13594@zim.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Optus-CM-Score: 0
X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=BPvrNysG c=1 sm=1 a=O6A2dy7pM2IA:10
 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=PO7r1zJSAAAA:8 a=JzwRw_2MAAAA:8 a=Zc3-fPm5GV4A:10
 a=SKYg3Y9sK9o-Tfi3u28A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ebeQFi2P/qHVC0Yw9JDJ4g==:117
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:41:17 +0000
Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>,
 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>,
 Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, freebsd-numerics@FreeBSD.org,
 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>,
 Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of high quality implementation of libm functions."
 <freebsd-numerics.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-numerics>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-numerics>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-numerics>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-numerics-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:12:12 -0000

On Tue, 28 May 2013, David Schultz wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2013, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>
>> I think I tested "inline" on the large functions (just 2) and found
>> it useful for efficiency.  This is like inline on large trig support
>> functions being useful.  The inline parts are duplicated once per
>> C99-API function, and often the caller only uses on C99-API function.
>> Actually, the large inlines are not duplicated that much.  cacosh()
>> and casinh() are just wrappers that call cacos() and casin(),
>> respectively.  There is no inlining for the last 2 (even larger)
>> functions.  The overhead for the wrappers is noticeable, but more
>> inlining didn't seem to reduce it much.
>
> If you did benchmarks to show that using inline is worthwhile
> despite the cache pressure, then it's fine with me. I had assumed
> that it was added without much thought.

I retested.  Inlining the big function do_hard_work() helps for gcc on
amd64 (about 5% faster), but makes no significant difference for clang.
The previous testing was mostly with gcc.

Bruce