Paul Koning wrote: > I'm really puzzled by that comment, partly because the text book quote > you gave doesn't match any math I ever learned. Does "knowing your > math" translates to "believing that trig functions should be applied > only to arguments in the range 0 to 2pi"? If so, I must object.
I'll correct myself to say "people who know their application." ;) Some apps need sin() over all possible doubles, while other applications need sin() over the range of angles. > What *may* make sense is the creation of a new option (off by default) > that says "you're allowed to assume that all calls to trig functions > have arguments in the range x..y". Then the question to be answered > is what x and y should be. A possible answer is 0 and 2pi; another > answer that some might prefer is -pi to +pi. Or it might be -2pi to > +2pi to accommodate both preferences at essentially no cost. I prefer breaking out the hardware intrinsics from -funsafe-math-optimizations, such that people can compile to use their hardware *without* the other transformations implicit in the current collective. If someone can explain how this hurts anything, please let me know. ..Scott
