On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 21:53:23 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
Have you tried LLVM intrinsics? say llvm_exp
While LLVM does have math intrinsics, they seem to boil down to C
runtime calls in many/most cases. I.e., on Linux x86_64,
`llvm_exp(real)` simply maps to the C function `expl()` an
I would say he has, becaue AFAIK mir.math.common using LLVM intrinsics
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d-learn <
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 20:33:13 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 19
On Sunday, 8 April 2018 at 05:35:10 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran
wrote:
Did you also generate the bar graph plot using D?
Heh nope, I used LibreOffice Calc for that.
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 23:48:36 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 20:33:13 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran
wrote:
[...]
As this appears to be benchmarking mostly the
std.math.exp(float) performance - some/many basic algos in
std.math, incl. exp(), are currently using the x87 FPU
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 20:33:13 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran
wrote:
Much better with mir.math.common, still a bit slower than C
(even with larger loops):
As this appears to be benchmarking mostly the std.math.exp(float)
performance - some/many basic algos in std.math, incl. exp(), are
curre
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 20:33:13 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran
wrote:
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 19:14:27 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
or for ldc
http://docs.algorithm.dlang.io/latest/mir_math_common.html
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
can you try it with c math functio
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 19:14:27 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
or for ldc
http://docs.algorithm.dlang.io/latest/mir_math_common.html
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
can you try it with c math functions?
instead of std.math, try to use core.stdc.math
On Sat, Apr 7, 201
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 18:53:57 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran
wrote:
What am I doing wrong here that makes the D equivalent 2.5
times slower than it's C equivalent?
Compilers used:
LDC2: LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.8.0)
GCC: gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
11:36:39 ~/code
or for ldc http://docs.algorithm.dlang.io/latest/mir_math_common.html
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> can you try it with c math functions?
>
> instead of std.math, try to use core.stdc.math
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Arun Chandrasekaran via
> Digitalmars-d-learn
can you try it with c math functions?
instead of std.math, try to use core.stdc.math
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Arun Chandrasekaran via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> What am I doing wrong here that makes the D equivalent 2.5 times slower
> than it's C equivalent?
>
> Compilers used:
>
> LDC
What am I doing wrong here that makes the D equivalent 2.5 times
slower than it's C equivalent?
Compilers used:
LDC2: LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.8.0)
GCC: gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
11:36:39 ~/code/c/test2$ ldc2 sigmoid.d -O5 && ./sigmoid
Max deviation is 0.001664
10^
11 matches
Mail list logo