On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Corbin Simpson <mostawesomed...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trying to remember floating-point rules. Isn't repeated multiplication less > precise than pow()? I thought that was why even integer exponents were only > unrollable if things like -ffast-math were set. I might be remembering wrong > though.
Makes sense, and certainly agrees with my simple experiments with gcc (-ffast-math does unroll them for me). Another option is -funsafe-math-optimizations (which does the pow unrolling, but does not disable as much of the error checking. > Sending from a mobile, pardon the brevity. ~ C. > > On Oct 4, 2010 1:30 AM, "Stéfan van der Walt" <ste...@sun.ac.za> wrote: >> Hi Stefan >> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: >>> Stéfan van der Walt, 03.10.2010 20:29: >>>> >>>> x**4 >>>> >>> the correct way to do it (although a similar optimisation for constant >>> exponents may be worth it). If it's an integer type, please double check >> >> Yes, it's a floating point number; such an optimisation would be very >> useful! >> >> Regards >> Stéfan >> _______________________________________________ >> Cython-dev mailing list >> Cython-dev@codespeak.net >> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Cython-dev mailing list > Cython-dev@codespeak.net > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev > > _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
