Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 01:19:21 -0700 From: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans <bde@freebsd.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 Message-ID: <20130528081921.GB13594@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20130528155933.V1298@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 28, 2013, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013, David Schultz wrote: > > > ... > > Below is a diff of all the changes needed to integrate it. I have > > a short list of style fixes, but otherwise I think what you have > > is good: > > - wrap lines to 80 chars, please > > - spaces between operators > > - "static inline", not "inline static" > > - don't use "inline" on large functions > > Another reply. > > 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. > > More investigation of the extent of the style bugs: > - only 1 line is longer than 80 columns now and easy to fix. Other long > lines are for declarations where I prefer to keep the long comments > on the same line > - spaces between operations will expand a few lines beyond 80 columns if > done blindly. Only a few. 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. Also, people have been asking for someone to commit this for a long time, so I'm not going to split hairs over the spacing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130528081921.GB13594>