Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 17:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005132121.RAA16244@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Dieter Buerssner" <buers AT gmx DOT de>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200005121903.PAA29374@delorie.com> (buers@gmx.de)
Subject: Re: Math functions
References:  <200005121903 DOT PAA29374 AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Dieter Buerssner" <buers AT gmx DOT de>
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:11:49 +0200
>
> From my testing, the floating point functions built into the FPU are 
> normally better than 2^-63 (when called with an argument correctly 
> reduced to the supported range). When this is an acceptable error 
> (which I think it is), the functions won't be slow. When this is not 
> an acceptable error, I can't do it :-(

What about functions that aren't built into the FPU?  They are the
majority, IIRC.