In D131095#3699654, @tschuett wrote:

Did you consider using builtins with overflow checking:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins.html
It is platform independent and leaves some optimisations opportunities to the compiler.

Paul (@zimmermann6) and Tue (@lntue),

Rebased to latest main.

Thank you Paul for sharing the results.
The results I got using the same compiler (llvm 11) as Paul (@zimmermann6):

CORE_MATH_PERF_MODE=rdtsc PERF_ARGS='' ./perf.sh coshf
GNU libc version: 2.31
GNU libc release: stable
18.534
13.019
17.590
CORE_MATH_PERF_MODE=rdtsc PERF_ARGS='--latency' ./perf.sh coshf
GNU libc version: 2.31
GNU libc release: stable
49.670
38.334
50.461

As you can see llvm 12 significantly improve throughput of this version of coshf over version 11. Partially this problem can be explained by this difference. Another source of the difference is Intel vs AMD. We observe such difference with (@lntue).
Paul, can you confirm, that the precision is OK? I think that we can push the changes even though the solution is not the fastest for all platforms/compilers? Tue?

Review fixes.

Review fixes.

Review fixes. More verbose comments.

Review fixes.

Rebasing on main with small fixes.

Rebasing on main with small fixes.

Merged to last main, some cosmetic changes.

Small fixes in test.

Small fixes.

OK. Thanks! let's wait.

Added explicit dependencies.

Improved performance by fputil::nearest_integer function.

The easiest way, from my point of view, will be to apply it on top of working coshf branch, which you made and test.

Can you try to put all the chain on top of the revision 60d6be5dd3f411cfe1b5392cbb... for now. I'll rebase the revisions to the last main tonight.

Yes. You should first apply D129005, after D129215 and after that one. The initial revision were cut to several ones to improve review process and new function deployment.

Fix some reviewer comments.

Fix build problem.

Added sinhf/coshf

Changed unsafe_clz to safe_clz in string_to_float.h

unsafe ctz/clz

Tue. I think, if we will not find agreement with ctz/clz syntax, we can ask Siva to solve the problem. Also, as long as you will use the function in the next changes, you can also try them and if it will not work good, improve it.

Tests polishing.

Thank you Tue, for your comments. They was really useful. I'll really appreciate if you go through all my replies. It was a lot of them, so I'm afraid that I can miss something or my changes can be improved even more. I'll also appreciate if you check the performance for fmod in the same way, as other functions. I've attached the file

Cosmetic changes: veriable renaming, docs update etc.

Some cosmetic changes.

C standard/Posix processing of special numbers.

cerrno fix.

Rebasing changes on last main.

Update static_assert message.

Fixed header protection name.

Added EXP_MANT_MASK.