Re: Profiling Ada binaries

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

<rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:588a93bb-b39a-4196-b6ca-5e673fd256dd@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:36:45 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

>> If you look at the requirements for the Cos function in Annex A and Annex 
>> G (if
>> implemented, which it is for GNAT), you'll find a number of requirements 
>> for
>> accuracy and special cases. If you look at the definition of the built-in
>> function, you'll likely find that it doesn't meet all of those 
>> requirements. Any
>> call to Cos has to involve wrapping a call to the built-in function in 
>> code to
>> ensure those requirements are met, so you won't find a call to the 
>> built-in
>> function in the generated code.
>
>Yes, any "strict" LRM matching implementation probably won't use the 
>built-in functions.

Can't really, at least for the Intel implementations of Sin, Cos, etc. Those 
don't do argument reduction, which is required to get the appropriate 
accuracy. (I recall reading the Intel processor manual for those 
instructions, and they recommended reducing the arguments before using 
them.) I suppose one could try to do all of that inline, but I can't see the 
reason to bother with special code for that -- the usual inlining mechanisms 
will do that if it makes sense.

                                     Randy.