Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/10/13/12:22:09
Dear Eli Zaretskii,
On 10-13-98 at 10:47:42 EST you wrote:
>
>
> How come these are so close in run time, while the rest are roughly
> twice as fast as libm.a? Could you make sure the times are right,
> even as relative ones? I suggest to run them on an unloaded system.
>
Rudd's analysis was correct:
>> I would guess that these times are dominated by something other than
>> function computations, since they seem so similar.
My claim that some of his functions are twice as fast as those in libm.a
has yet to be verified by credible evidence.
Here are the execution times in an unloaded environment:
Execution Times
Name of Test(s) Rudd libm.a
---------------------- ------- -------
acosh(x) vs. xacosh(x): 31.648 31.978
asin(x) vs. xasin(x)
& acos(x) vs. xacos(x): 78.022 78.132
asinh(x) vs. xasinh(x): 25.110 25.165
atan(x) vs. xatan(x)
& atan2(x,y) vs. xatan2(x,y): 49.560 49.725
atanh(x) vs. xatanh(x): 13.297 13.297
exp(x) vs. xexp(x): 8.462 8.462
log1p(x) vs xlog(1+x): 4.560 4.560
log(x) vs xlog(x)
& log10(x) vs xlog10(x) 14.560 14.670
pow(x,p) vs. xpow(x,p): 31.813 31.868
sin(x) vs. xsin(x)
& cos(x) vs. xcos(x): 27.033 27.308
sinh(x) vs. xsinh(x)
& cosh(x) vs. xcosh(x): 25.549 25.604
sqrt(x) vs. xsqrt(x): 17.473 17.418
tan(x) vs. xtan(x)
& cot(x) vs. xcot(x): 38.626 38.516
tanh(x) vs. xtanh(x): 13.352 13.352
K.B. Williams
- Raw text -