GNU bug report logs - #42147
28.0.50; pure vs side-effect-free, missing optimizations?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>
Cc: mattiase <at> acm.org, eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, andrea_corallo <at> yahoo.it, 42147 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#42147: 28.0.50; pure vs side-effect-free, missing optimizations?
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 05:38:55 +0300

> From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 22:25:55 +0000
> Cc: mattiase <at> acm.org, Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, andrea_corallo <at> yahoo.it,
>  42147 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I'm actually not completely sure why we care about those minor
> > rounding differences.
> 
> Neither am I. If the idea is to standardize Emacs on a single
> floating-point representation, let's at least use the 61-bit floats
> Paul suggested a while back? (Incidentally, I believe those can be
> implemented somewhat more efficiently on x87 hardware). Or we could go
> with bignum ratios or GMP floats.

Some other relevant questions:

  . why didn't GCC folks made SSE2 the default output?  shouldn't
    Emacs follow the defaults, and leave it to the experts to decide
    which instruction set should be the default?

  . which other projects use this non-standard instruction set?  GNU
    Guile, for example, doesn't, so why should we?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.