-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
float16 cbrt, 50% faster #39441
float16 cbrt, 50% faster #39441
Conversation
@simonbyrne @pkofod - Could you guys review? |
aaa28c0
to
a5b7e73
Compare
@oscardssmith Should we merge if it is passing the comprehensive float16 testsuite? |
If it passes, this is just free performance. |
So bad news: This doesn't pass the test. Worse news, this shows that the test is actually wrong. With this PR, we can see
In other words, 2048 bits of precision is not enough for double rounding not to mess things up. |
Interestingly, this doesn't seem to be a problem of
|
IIUC, the above discussion concludes that we should merge this, as it is actually more accurate than the tests. Correct? |
I'm not sure we should merge this until #40315 is fixed. Basically right now, Julia does not have a correct way for me to test this since conversion from |
I think I'm still okay merging with knowing that. Aside: do we need to fix the definition of |
Co-authored-by: Kristoffer Carlsson <kcarlsson89@gmail.com>
From JuliaLang#39432 and JuliaLang#39441, these were still using their old definition due to method overwriting.
Co-authored-by: Kristoffer Carlsson <kcarlsson89@gmail.com>
From JuliaLang#39432 and JuliaLang#39441, these were still using their old definition due to method overwriting.
Co-authored-by: Kristoffer Carlsson <kcarlsson89@gmail.com>
From JuliaLang#39432 and JuliaLang#39441, these were still using their old definition due to method overwriting.
.5 ULP error tested on all
Float16