This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Inline C99 math functions
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Wilco Dijkstra <wdijkstr at arm dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:44:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inline C99 math functions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <001201d0a75b$921d9860$b658c920$ at com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506151431490 dot 26683 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <001701d0a789$f2ab86f0$d80294d0$ at com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506151654100 dot 26683 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 06/15/2015 01:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
>>> Where are the benchmarks for this? Please put them in benchtests so
>>> actual reproducible figures can be given. That's the standard practice
>>> for any change being justified on the basis of performance.
>>
>> I'll add a benchmark in another patch - it's not trivial as benchtest is not
>> suitable to accurately time very simple functions, especially when inlined...
>
> Well, the benchmark should come first....
Agreed.
If it's not trivial to test the performance... then how did you test it?
How do I test it when reviewing the patch?
Cheers,
Carlos.