Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:58:28 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Kbwms AT aol DOT com
cc:	rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: libc math function upgrade work
In-Reply-To:	<376d8718.36237de5@aol.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981014115810.8710E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 Kbwms AT aol DOT com wrote:

> Rudd's analysis was correct:
> 
> >> I would guess that these times are dominated by something other than
> >> function computations, since they seem so similar.
> 
> My claim that some of his functions are twice as fast as those in libm.a
> has yet to be verified by credible evidence.

Building the tests with -pg and looking at the cumulative time of the
relevant math functions is the way to go, I think.

In my view, it is important to know how much speedup does one gain by
using this version as opposed to both libm and the current libc
versions.  (I would expect to see a significant difference, at least
relative to libm.)  Otherwise, the merits of getting current versions
replaced are not clear enough.  IIRC, one of Eric's original goals for
doing all this work was to gain speed, so this aspect seems to be
important to Eric as well.

- Raw text -