Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:49:59 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libc math function upgrade work
In-Reply-To: <3624AC9F.44717115@cyberoptics.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981014174655.10409C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Eric Rudd wrote:

> I observed about 10-20% variation on various compiles, probably due to code
> alignment differences, but on the average the new routines are about three
> times faster than libm.

Was that with libm.a from DJGPP v2.01 or from the alpha release of 
v2.02?  Libm was replaced by a new and a very different version in the
last alpha release of v2.02.  (I expect the new version be slower than 
the old, but you can never know until you test.)

> I haven't done such extensive tests with the current libc, but when I was
> developing my routines I did some individual tests, and my routines were no
> more than 20% slower than the current libc.  This is mostly due to the extra
> argument checking and changes to improve accuracy.

20% is close to be negligible, IMHO.