On 5 October 2014 15:12, Jeff Epler <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe that what happens is that gcc analyzes the function
>
> void sincos(double x, double *sx, double *cx)
> {
> *sx = sin(x);
> *cx = cos(x);
> }
>
> and determines that it is equivalent to the call
> sincos(x, sx, cx);
I assume that the compiler is clever enough to spot that
void sincos(double x, double *sx, double *cx)
{
*cx = cos(x);
*sx = sin(x);
}
is _also_ sincos?
I can imagine "breaking" the equivalence by combinations of tans...
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you don't own it.
http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
