On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > I don't buy the argument that inlining math routines (apart from those > we already handle) would improve performance. What will improve > performance is to have separate entry points to the routines > to skip errno handling, NaN/Inf checking or rounding mode selection > when certain compilation flags are set. That as well as a more > sane calling convention for, for example sincos, or in general > on x86_64 (have at least _some_ callee-saved XMM registers).
glibc has some extra entry points for -ffinite-math-only in 2.15. > The issue with libm in glibc here is that Drepper absolutely does > not want new ABIs in libm - he believes that for example vectorized > routines do not belong there (nor the SSE calling-convention variants > for i686 I tried to push once). And this fits in with the general principle that glibc's libm is for general-purpose use (balancing speed, size, accuracy etc.) and it makes sense to have the extra variants in a separate library (that won't necessarily be loaded into every program linked with libstdc++ or with a computation of a square root that's not at all performance critical, for example); being conservative about extra interfaces in a basic system library does make sense. One key difference with the -ffinite-math-only entry points is that they generally are just exported names for functions that already existed - the code was already structured to do checks for errors / exceptional values and then call the main function for the no-error case as needed. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com