-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
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
Constexpr fma #734
Constexpr fma #734
Conversation
On the one hand this looks trivial.... on the other hand do we not run the risk of compile-time and runtime fma's returning subtly differing values? |
If the compiler doesn't optimize this to an |
@jzmaddock : Is an fma for multiprecision infeasible or just a PITA? |
@NAThompson This is clean and good for review. The implementation is trivial, but with the documented compiler flag the results are exact. Here is the prototype for ima support in Boost.Multiprecision. |
1 similar comment
@NAThompson This is clean and good for review. The implementation is trivial, but with the documented compiler flag the results are exact. Here is the prototype for ima support in Boost.Multiprecision. |
Cool; this looks good. Is the failed job a known issue? |
It's a sanitizer issue in autodiff that seems to be popping up consistently. |
Implements:
fma
,fmaf
, andfmal