Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:46:06 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Kbwms AT aol DOT com
cc: rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libc math function upgrade work
In-Reply-To: <c97dc42a.361e30e0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981013174547.4278H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 Kbwms AT aol DOT com wrote:

> Test of acosh(x) vs. xacosh(x):          48.022          48.352
> Test of asin(x) vs. xasin(x)
>  & acos(x) vs. xacos(x):                118.407         118.516
> Test of asinh(x) vs. xasinh(x):          38.132          38.242
> Test of atan(x) vs. xatan(x)
>  & atan2(x,y) vs. xatan2(x,y):           75.275          75.604
> Test of atanh(x) vs. xatanh(x):          20.165          20.110
> Test of exp(x) vs. xexp(x):              12.967          12.857
> Test of log1p(x) vs xlog(1+x):            6.868           6.923

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.