Re: Should we use boost::math::log1p/expm1 instead of rtl_math_log1p/expm1 ?

2014-09-17 Thread julien2412 
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote
> Julien, I am curious if you have done any testing.
> ...

Hi Andrew,

First thank you for your feedback.
I must recognize that no, I didn't made any tests.


Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote
> No differences were found in this little test. Then again, on Fedora, 
> Boost may be configured to use the built-in implementation, I don't 
> really know. I did not check our source code, but, it might reduce the 
> LO code complexity a little bit, that might be a gain.

Ok, let's wait for a building expert about this.

Julien



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Should-we-use-boost-math-log1p-expm1-instead-of-rtl-math-log1p-expm1-tp4122334p4122614.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Should we use boost::math::log1p/expm1 instead of rtl_math_log1p/expm1 ?

2014-09-17 Thread Andrew Douglas Pitonyak 

On 09/15/2014 03:38 PM, julien2412 wrote:

Hello,

Following
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=a3ad01dc1e07da21182077bd899094fd73f57714,
should  it worth it to replace rtl_math_log1p/rtl_math_expm1 and related by
boost::math::log1p/expm1 ?
Or should we let the code as it is right now?

Since we already use Boost, I thought it could be interesting to use it even
more, waiting by a even more C++11 compatibility (since this standard
includes these 2 functions).

Julien



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Should-we-use-boost-math-log1p-expm1-instead-of-rtl-math-log1p-expm1-tp4122334.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice



Julien, I am curious if you have done any testing. On a whim, I ran the 
following on my 64-bit Fedora machine using g++.


#include 
#include 

#include 
#include 

int main()
{
  double min_x = -0.2;
  double max_x = 0.2;
  long max_its = 1000;
  double delta_x = (max_x - min_x) / (max_its - 1);
  double x;
  double d;
  long i;
  for (i=0; i 0.0) {
  std::cout << "1. diff(" << x << ") = " << d << std::endl;
}
  }

  for (i=0; i 0.0) {
  std::cout << "2. diff(" << x << ") = " << d << std::endl;
}
  }
  std::cout << "Finished!" << std::endl;
  return 0;
}

No differences were found in this little test. Then again, on Fedora, 
Boost may be configured to use the built-in implementation, I don't 
really know. I did not check our source code, but, it might reduce the 
LO code complexity a little bit, that might be a gain.


--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Should we use boost::math::log1p/expm1 instead of rtl_math_log1p/expm1 ?

2014-09-15 Thread julien2412 
Hello,

Following
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=a3ad01dc1e07da21182077bd899094fd73f57714,
should  it worth it to replace rtl_math_log1p/rtl_math_expm1 and related by
boost::math::log1p/expm1 ?
Or should we let the code as it is right now?

Since we already use Boost, I thought it could be interesting to use it even
more, waiting by a even more C++11 compatibility (since this standard
includes these 2 functions).

Julien



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Should-we-use-boost-math-log1p-expm1-instead-of-rtl-math-log1p-expm1-tp4122334.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice