lib/msun: Cleanup after $FreeBSD$ removal

Remove no longer needed explicit inclusion of sys/cdefs.h.

PR: 276669
MFC after: 1 week

Remove $FreeBSD$: one-line .c pattern

Remove /^[\s*]*__FBSDID\("\$FreeBSD\$"\);?\s*\n/

s/rcsid/__FBSDID/

Merge the relevant part of rev.1.14 of s_cbrt.c (a micro-optimization
involving moving the check for x == 0). The savings in cycles are
smaller for cbrtf() than for cbrt(), and positive in all measu

Merge the relevant part of rev.1.14 of s_cbrt.c (a micro-optimization
involving moving the check for x == 0). The savings in cycles are
smaller for cbrtf() than for cbrt(), and positive in all measured cases
with gcc-3.4.4, but still very machine/compiler-dependent.

show more ...

Oops, on amd64 (and probably on all non-i386 systems), the previous
commit broke the 2**24 cases where |x| > DBL_MAX/2. There are exponent
range problems not just for denormals (underflow) but for l

Oops, on amd64 (and probably on all non-i386 systems), the previous
commit broke the 2**24 cases where |x| > DBL_MAX/2. There are exponent
range problems not just for denormals (underflow) but for large values
(overflow). Doubles have more than enough exponent range to avoid the
problems, but I forgot to convert enough terms to double, so there was
an x+x term which was sometimes evaluated in float precision.

Unfortunately, this is a pessimization with some combinations of systems
and compilers (it makes no difference on Athlon XP's, but on Athlon64's
it gives a 5% pessimization with gcc-3.4 but not with gcc-3.3).

Exlain the problem better in comments.

show more ...

Use double precision internally to optimize cbrtf(), and change the
algorithm for the second step significantly to also get a perfectly
rounded result in round-to-nearest mode. The resulting optimiz

Use double precision internally to optimize cbrtf(), and change the
algorithm for the second step significantly to also get a perfectly
rounded result in round-to-nearest mode. The resulting optimization
is about 25% on Athlon64's and 30% on Athlon XP's (about 25 cycles
out of 100 on the former).

Using extra precision, we don't need to do anything special to avoid
large rounding errors in the third step (Newton's method), so we can
regroup terms to avoid a division, increase clarity, and increase
opportunities for parallelism. Rearrangement for parallelism loses
the increase in clarity. We end up with the same number of operations
but with a division reduced to a multiplication.

Using specifically double precision, there is enough extra precision
for the third step to give enough precision for perfect rounding to
float precision provided the previous steps are accurate to 16 bits.
(They were accurate to 12 bits, which was almost minimal for imperfect
rounding in the old version but would be more than enough for imperfect
rounding in this version (9 bits would be enough now).) I couldn't
find any significant time optimizations from optimizing the previous
steps, so I decided to optimize for accuracy instead. The second step
needed a division although a previous commit optimized it to use a
polynomial approximation for its main detail, and this division dominated
the time for the second step. Use the same Newton's method for the
second step as for the third step since this is insignificantly slower
than the division plus the polynomial (now that Newton's method only
needs 1 division), significantly more accurate, and simpler. Single
precision would be precise enough for the second step, but doesn't
have enough exponent range to handle denormals without the special
grouping of terms (as in previous versions) that requires another
division, so we use double precision for both the second and third
steps.

show more ...

Use a minimax polynomial approximation instead of a Pade rational
function approximation for the second step. The polynomial has degree
2 for cbrtf() and 4 for cbrt(). These degrees are minimal for

Use a minimax polynomial approximation instead of a Pade rational
function approximation for the second step. The polynomial has degree
2 for cbrtf() and 4 for cbrt(). These degrees are minimal for the final
accuracy to be essentially the same as before (slightly smaller).
Adjust the rounding between steps 2 and 3 to match. Unfortunately,
for cbrt(), this breaks the claimed accuracy slightly although incorrect
rounding doesn't. Claim less accuracy since its not worth pessimizing
the polynomial or relying on exhaustive testing to get insignificantly
more accuracy.

This saves about 30 cycles on Athlons (mainly by avoiding 2 divisions)
so it gives an overall optimization in the 10-25% range (a larger
percentage for float precision, especially in 32-bit mode, since other
overheads are more dominant for double precision, surprisingly more
in 32-bit mode).

show more ...

Fixed code to match comments and the algorithm:
- in preparing for the third approximation, actually make t larger in
magnitude than cbrt(x). After chopping, t must be incremented by 2
ulps to m

Fixed code to match comments and the algorithm:
- in preparing for the third approximation, actually make t larger in
magnitude than cbrt(x). After chopping, t must be incremented by 2
ulps to make it larger, not 1 ulp since chopping can reduce it by
almost 1 ulp and it might already be up to half a different-sized-ulp
smaller than cbrt(x). I have not found any cases where this is
essential, but the think-time error bound depends on it. The relative
smallness of the different-sized-ulp limited the bug. If there are
cases where this is essential, then the final error bound would be
5/6+epsilon instead of of 4/6+epsilon ulps (still < 1).
- in preparing for the third approximation, round more carefully (but
still sloppily to avoid branches) so that the claimed error bound of
0.667 ulps is satisfied in all cases tested for cbrt() and remains
satisfied in all cases for cbrtf(). There isn't enough spare precision
for very sloppy rounding to work:
- in cbrt(), even with the inadequate increment, the actual error was
0.6685 in some cases, and correcting the increment increased this
a little. The fix uses sloppy rounding to 25 bits instead of very
sloppy rounding to 21 bits, and starts using uint64_t instead of 2
words for bit manipulation so that rounding more bits is not much
costly.
- in cbrtf(), the 0.667 bound was already satisfied even with the
inadequate increment, but change the code to almost match cbrt()
anyway. There is not enough spare precision in the Newton
approximation to double the inadequate increment without exceeding
the 0.667 bound, and no spare precision to avoid this problem as
in cbrt(). The fix is to round using an increment of 2 smaller-ulps
before chopping so that an increment of 1 ulp is enough. In cbrt(),
we essentially do the same, but move the chop point so that the
increment of 1 is not needed.

Fixed comments to match code:
- in cbrt(), the second approximation is good to 25 bits, not quite 26 bits.
- in cbrt(), don't claim that the second approximation may be implemented
in single precision. Single precision cannot handle the full exponent
range without minor but pessimal changes to renormalize, and although
single precision is enough, 25 bit precision is now claimed and used.

Added comments about some of the magic for the error bound 4/6+epsilon.
I still don't understand why it is 4/6+ and not 6/6+ ulps.

Indent comments at the right of code more consistently.

show more ...

Optimize by not doing excessive conversions for handling the sign bit.
This gives an optimization of between 9 and 22% on Athlons (largest
for cbrt() on amd64 -- from 205 to 159 cycles).

We extracte

Optimize by not doing excessive conversions for handling the sign bit.
This gives an optimization of between 9 and 22% on Athlons (largest
for cbrt() on amd64 -- from 205 to 159 cycles).

We extracted the sign bit and worked with |x|, and restored the sign
bit as the last step. We avoided branches to a fault by using accesses
to FP values as bits to clear and restore the sign bit. Avoiding
branches is usually good, but the bit access macros are not so good
(especially for setting FP values), and here they always caused pipeline
stalls on Athlons. Even using branches would be faster except on args
that give perfect branch misprediction, since only mispredicted branches
cause stalls, but it possible to avoid touching the sign bit in FP
values at all (except to preserve it in conversions from bits to FP
not related to the sign bit). Do this. The results are identical
except in 2 of the 3 unsupported rounding modes, since all the
approximations use odd rational functions so they work right on strictly
negative values, and the special case of -0 doesn't use an approximation.

show more ...

Fixed some especially horrible style bugs (indentation that is neither
KNF nor fdlibmNF combined with multiple statements per line).

Added comments about the magic behind
<cbrt(x) in bits> ~= <x in bits>/3 + BIAS.
Keep the large comments only in the double version as usual.

Fixed some style bugs (mainly grammar and spelling e

Added comments about the magic behind
<cbrt(x) in bits> ~= <x in bits>/3 + BIAS.
Keep the large comments only in the double version as usual.

Fixed some style bugs (mainly grammar and spelling errors in comments).

show more ...

Fixed the unexpectedly large maximum error after the previous commit.
It was because I forgot to translate the part of the double precision
algorithm that chops t so that t*t is exact. Now the maxim

Fixed the unexpectedly large maximum error after the previous commit.
It was because I forgot to translate the part of the double precision
algorithm that chops t so that t*t is exact. Now the maximum error
is the same as for double precision (almost exactly 2.0/3 ulps).

show more ...

Fixed all 502518670 errors of more than 1 ulp for cbrtf() on amd64.
The maximum error was 3.56 ulps.

The bug was another translation error. The double precision version
has a comment saying "new cb

Fixed all 502518670 errors of more than 1 ulp for cbrtf() on amd64.
The maximum error was 3.56 ulps.

The bug was another translation error. The double precision version
has a comment saying "new cbrt to 23 bits, may be implemented in
precision". This means exactly what it says -- that the 23 bit second
approximation for the double precision cbrt() may be implemented in
single (i.e., float) precision. It doesn't mean what the translation
assumed -- that this approximation, when implemented in float precision,
is good enough for the the final approximation in float precision.
First, float precision needs a 24 bit approximation. The "23 bit"
approximation is actually good to 24 bits on float precision args, but
only if it is evaluated in double precision. Second, the algorithm
requires a cleanup step to ensure its error bound.

In float precision, any reasonable algorithm works for the cleanup
step. Use the same algorithm as for double precision, although this
is much more than enough and is a significant pessimization, and don't
optimize or simplify anything using double precision to implement the
float case, so that the whole double precision algorithm can be verified
in float precision. A maximum error of 0.667 ulps is claimed for cbrt()
and the max for cbrtf() using the same algorithm shouldn't be different,
but the actual max for cbrtf() on amd64 is now 0.9834 ulps. (On i386
-O1 the max is 0.5006 (down from < 0.7) due to extra precision.)

show more ...

Fix formatting, this is hard to explain, so I'll show one example.

- float ynf(int n, float x) /* wrapper ynf */
+float
+ynf(int n, float x) /* wrapper ynf */

This is because the __S

Fix formatting, this is hard to explain, so I'll show one example.

- float ynf(int n, float x) /* wrapper ynf */
+float
+ynf(int n, float x) /* wrapper ynf */

This is because the __STDC__ stuff was indented.

Reviewed by: md5

show more ...

Assume __STDC__, remove non-__STDC__ code.

Reviewed by: md5

$Id$ -> $FreeBSD$

Revert $FreeBSD$ to $Id$

Make the long-awaited change from $Id$ to $FreeBSD$

This will make a number of things easier in the future, as well as (finally!)
avoiding the Id-smashing problem which has plagued developers for so

Make the long-awaited change from $Id$ to $FreeBSD$

This will make a number of things easier in the future, as well as (finally!)
avoiding the Id-smashing problem which has plagued developers for so long.

Boy, I'm glad we're not using sup anymore. This update would have been
insane otherwise.

show more ...

Remove trailing whitespace.

J.T. Conklin's latest version of the Sun math library.

-- Begin comments from J.T. Conklin:
The most significant improvement is the addition of "float" versions
of the math functions that take float

J.T. Conklin's latest version of the Sun math library.

-- Begin comments from J.T. Conklin:
The most significant improvement is the addition of "float" versions
of the math functions that take float arguments, return floats, and do
all operations in floating point. This doesn't help (performance)
much on the i386, but they are still nice to have.

The float versions were orginally done by Cygnus' Ian Taylor when
fdlibm was integrated into the libm we support for embedded systems.
I gave Ian a copy of my libm as a starting point since I had already
fixed a lot of bugs & problems in Sun's original code. After he was
done, I cleaned it up a bit and integrated the changes back into my
libm.
-- End comments

Reviewed by: jkh
Submitted by: jtc

show more ...

s/rcsid/__FBSDID/

Merge the relevant part of rev.1.14 of s_cbrt.c (a micro-optimization
involving moving the check for x == 0). The savings in cycles are
smaller for cbrtf() than for cbrt(), and positive in all measu

Merge the relevant part of rev.1.14 of s_cbrt.c (a micro-optimization
involving moving the check for x == 0). The savings in cycles are
smaller for cbrtf() than for cbrt(), and positive in all measured cases
with gcc-3.4.4, but still very machine/compiler-dependent.

show more ...

Oops, on amd64 (and probably on all non-i386 systems), the previous
commit broke the 2**24 cases where |x| > DBL_MAX/2. There are exponent
range problems not just for denormals (underflow) but for l

Oops, on amd64 (and probably on all non-i386 systems), the previous
commit broke the 2**24 cases where |x| > DBL_MAX/2. There are exponent
range problems not just for denormals (underflow) but for large values
(overflow). Doubles have more than enough exponent range to avoid the
problems, but I forgot to convert enough terms to double, so there was
an x+x term which was sometimes evaluated in float precision.

Unfortunately, this is a pessimization with some combinations of systems
and compilers (it makes no difference on Athlon XP's, but on Athlon64's
it gives a 5% pessimization with gcc-3.4 but not with gcc-3.3).

Exlain the problem better in comments.

show more ...

Use double precision internally to optimize cbrtf(), and change the
algorithm for the second step significantly to also get a perfectly
rounded result in round-to-nearest mode. The resulting optimiz

Use double precision internally to optimize cbrtf(), and change the
algorithm for the second step significantly to also get a perfectly
rounded result in round-to-nearest mode. The resulting optimization
is about 25% on Athlon64's and 30% on Athlon XP's (about 25 cycles
out of 100 on the former).

Using extra precision, we don't need to do anything special to avoid
large rounding errors in the third step (Newton's method), so we can
regroup terms to avoid a division, increase clarity, and increase
opportunities for parallelism. Rearrangement for parallelism loses
the increase in clarity. We end up with the same number of operations
but with a division reduced to a multiplication.

Using specifically double precision, there is enough extra precision
for the third step to give enough precision for perfect rounding to
float precision provided the previous steps are accurate to 16 bits.
(They were accurate to 12 bits, which was almost minimal for imperfect
rounding in the old version but would be more than enough for imperfect
rounding in this version (9 bits would be enough now).) I couldn't
find any significant time optimizations from optimizing the previous
steps, so I decided to optimize for accuracy instead. The second step
needed a division although a previous commit optimized it to use a
polynomial approximation for its main detail, and this division dominated
the time for the second step. Use the same Newton's method for the
second step as for the third step since this is insignificantly slower
than the division plus the polynomial (now that Newton's method only
needs 1 division), significantly more accurate, and simpler. Single
precision would be precise enough for the second step, but doesn't
have enough exponent range to handle denormals without the special
grouping of terms (as in previous versions) that requires another
division, so we use double precision for both the second and third
steps.

show more ...

Use a minimax polynomial approximation instead of a Pade rational
function approximation for the second step. The polynomial has degree
2 for cbrtf() and 4 for cbrt(). These degrees are minimal for

Use a minimax polynomial approximation instead of a Pade rational
function approximation for the second step. The polynomial has degree
2 for cbrtf() and 4 for cbrt(). These degrees are minimal for the final
accuracy to be essentially the same as before (slightly smaller).
Adjust the rounding between steps 2 and 3 to match. Unfortunately,
for cbrt(), this breaks the claimed accuracy slightly although incorrect
rounding doesn't. Claim less accuracy since its not worth pessimizing
the polynomial or relying on exhaustive testing to get insignificantly
more accuracy.

This saves about 30 cycles on Athlons (mainly by avoiding 2 divisions)
so it gives an overall optimization in the 10-25% range (a larger
percentage for float precision, especially in 32-bit mode, since other
overheads are more dominant for double precision, surprisingly more
in 32-bit mode).

show more ...