盲汉回答的改进版代码

#define EPSILON .0000000000001
// this is smallest effective threshold, at least on my OS (WSL ubuntu 18)
// possibly because factorial part turns 0 at some point
// and it happens faster then series element turns 0;
// validation was made against sin() from <math.h>
double ft_sin(double x)
{
    int k = 2;
    double r = x;
    double acc = 1;
    double den = 1;
    double num = x;

//  precision drops rapidly when x is not close to 0
//  so move x to 0 as close as possible
    while (x > PI)
        x -= PI;
    while (x < -PI)
        x += PI;
    if (x > PI / 2)
        return (ft_sin(PI - x));
    if (x < -PI / 2)
        return (ft_sin(-PI - x));
//  not using fabs for performance reasons
    while (acc > EPSILON || acc < -EPSILON)
    {
        num *= -x * x;
        den *= k * (k + 1);
        acc = num / den;
        r += acc;
        k += 2;
    }
    return (r);
}

OK kiddies, time for the pros.... This is one of my biggest complaints with inexperienced software engineers. They come in calculating transcendental functions from scratch (using Taylor's series) as if nobody had ever done these calculations before in their lives. Not true. This is a well defined problem and has been approached thousands of times by very clever software and hardware engineers and has a well defined solution. Basically, most of the transcendental functions use Chebyshev Polynomials to calculate them. As to which polynomials are used depends on the circumstances. First, the bible on this matter is a book called "Computer Approximations" by Hart and Cheney. In that book, you can decide if you have a hardware adder, multiplier, divider, etc, and decide which operations are fastest. e.g. If you had a really fast divider, the fastest way to calculate sine might be P1(x)/P2(x) where P1, P2 are Chebyshev polynomials. Without the fast divider, it might be just P(x), where P has much more terms than P1 or P2....so it'd be slower. So, first step is to determine your hardware and what it can do. Then you choose the appropriate combination of Chebyshev polynomials (is usually of the form cos(ax) = aP(x) for cosine for example, again where P is a Chebyshev polynomial). Then you decide what decimal precision you want. e.g. if you want 7 digits precision, you look that up in the appropriate table in the book I mentioned, and it will give you (for precision = 7.33) a number N = 4 and a polynomial number 3502. N is the order of the polynomial (so it's p4.x^4 + p3.x^3 + p2.x^2 + p1.x + p0), because N=4. Then you look up the actual value of the p4,p3,p2,p1,p0 values in the back of the book under 3502 (they'll be in floating point). Then you implement your algorithm in software in the form: (((p4.x + p3).x + p2).x + p1).x + p0 ....and this is how you'd calculate cosine to 7 decimal places on that hardware.

请注意，在FPU中大多数硬件实现的超越操作通常涉及一些微码和类似的操作(取决于硬件)。 切比雪夫多项式用于大多数先验多项式，但不是全部。例:使用Newton raphson方法的两次迭代，首先使用查询表，使用平方根更快。 同样，《计算机逼近》这本书会告诉你。

If you plan on implmementing these functions, I'd recommend to anyone that they get a copy of that book. It really is the bible for these kinds of algorithms. Note that there are bunches of alternative means for calculating these values like cordics, etc, but these tend to be best for specific algorithms where you only need low precision. To guarantee the precision every time, the chebyshev polynomials are the way to go. Like I said, well defined problem. Has been solved for 50 years now.....and thats how it's done.

Now, that being said, there are techniques whereby the Chebyshev polynomials can be used to get a single precision result with a low degree polynomial (like the example for cosine above). Then, there are other techniques to interpolate between values to increase the accuracy without having to go to a much larger polynomial, such as "Gal's Accurate Tables Method". This latter technique is what the post referring to the ACM literature is referring to. But ultimately, the Chebyshev Polynomials are what are used to get 90% of the way there.

享受。

如果你想犯罪

 __asm__ __volatile__("fsin" : "=t"(vsin) : "0"(xrads));

如果你想的话，因为

 __asm__ __volatile__("fcos" : "=t"(vcos) : "0"(xrads));

如果你想要根号方根

 __asm__ __volatile__("fsqrt" : "=t"(vsqrt) : "0"(value));

那么，既然机器指令可以做到，为什么还要使用不准确的代码呢?

对于罪恶，用泰勒展开可以得到

Sin (x) = x - x^3/3!+ x ^ 5/5 !- x ^ 7/7 !+……(1）

您将继续添加项，直到它们之间的差异低于可接受的容忍水平，或者只是有限的步数(更快，但不太精确)。举个例子:

float sin(float x)
{
  float res=0, pow=x, fact=1;
  for(int i=0; i<5; ++i)
  {
    res+=pow/fact;
    pow*=-1*x*x;
    fact*=(2*(i+1))*(2*(i+1)+1);
  }

  return res;
}

注:(1)适用于小角度的近似值sin(x)=x。对于更大的角度，你需要计算越来越多的项才能得到可接受的结果。 你可以使用while参数并继续，以达到一定的准确性:

double sin (double x){
    int i = 1;
    double cur = x;
    double acc = 1;
    double fact= 1;
    double pow = x;
    while (fabs(acc) > .00000001 &&   i < 100){
        fact *= ((2*i)*(2*i+1));
        pow *= -1 * x*x; 
        acc =  pow / fact;
        cur += acc;
        i++;
    }
    return cur;

}

切比雪夫多项式，正如在另一个答案中提到的，是函数和多项式之间的最大差异尽可能小的多项式。这是一个很好的开始。

在某些情况下，最大误差不是你感兴趣的，而是最大相对误差。例如，对于正弦函数，x = 0附近的误差应该比较大的值小得多;你想要一个小的相对误差。所以你可以计算sinx / x的切比雪夫多项式，然后把这个多项式乘以x。

Next you have to figure out how to evaluate the polynomial. You want to evaluate it in such a way that the intermediate values are small and therefore rounding errors are small. Otherwise the rounding errors might become a lot larger than errors in the polynomial. And with functions like the sine function, if you are careless then it may be possible that the result that you calculate for sin x is greater than the result for sin y even when x < y. So careful choice of the calculation order and calculation of upper bounds for the rounding error are needed.

例如，sinx = x - x^3/6 + x^5 / 120 - x^7 / 5040…如果你天真地计算sinx = x * (1 - x^2/6 + x^4/120 - x^6/5040…)，那么括号中的函数是递减的，如果y是x的下一个大的数字，那么有时siny会小于sinx。相反，计算sinx = x - x^3 * (1/6 - x^2/ 120 + x^4/5040…)，这是不可能发生的。

例如，在计算切比雪夫多项式时，通常需要将系数四舍五入到双倍精度。但是，虽然切比雪夫多项式是最优的，但系数舍入为双精度的切比雪夫多项式并不是具有双精度系数的最优多项式!

For example for sin (x), where you need coefficients for x, x^3, x^5, x^7 etc. you do the following: Calculate the best approximation of sin x with a polynomial (ax + bx^3 + cx^5 + dx^7) with higher than double precision, then round a to double precision, giving A. The difference between a and A would be quite large. Now calculate the best approximation of (sin x - Ax) with a polynomial (b x^3 + cx^5 + dx^7). You get different coefficients, because they adapt to the difference between a and A. Round b to double precision B. Then approximate (sin x - Ax - Bx^3) with a polynomial cx^5 + dx^7 and so on. You will get a polynomial that is almost as good as the original Chebyshev polynomial, but much better than Chebyshev rounded to double precision.

Next you should take into account the rounding errors in the choice of polynomial. You found a polynomial with minimum error in the polynomial ignoring rounding error, but you want to optimise polynomial plus rounding error. Once you have the Chebyshev polynomial, you can calculate bounds for the rounding error. Say f (x) is your function, P (x) is the polynomial, and E (x) is the rounding error. You don't want to optimise | f (x) - P (x) |, you want to optimise | f (x) - P (x) +/- E (x) |. You will get a slightly different polynomial that tries to keep the polynomial errors down where the rounding error is large, and relaxes the polynomial errors a bit where the rounding error is small.

所有这些将使您轻松地获得最多0.55倍于最后一位的舍入误差，其中+，-，*，/的舍入误差最多为0.50倍于最后一位。

关于sin()， cos()，tan()这样的三角函数，在5年之后，没有提到高质量三角函数的一个重要方面:极差约简。

任何这些函数的早期步骤都是将角度(以弧度为单位)减小到2*π区间。但是π是无理数，所以像x =余数(x, 2*M_PI)这样的简单简化会引入误差，因为M_PI或机器pi是π的近似值。那么，如何求x =余数(x, 2*π)呢?

早期的库使用扩展精度或精心设计的编程来提供高质量的结果，但仍然在有限的double范围内。当请求一个较大的值，如sin(pow(2,30))时，结果是无意义的或0.0，并且可能将错误标志设置为TLOSS完全损失精度或PLOSS部分损失精度。

将大的值缩小到像-π到π这样的区间是一个具有挑战性的问题，它可以与基本三角函数(比如sin())本身的挑战相媲美。

一个好的报告是大论点的论据缩减:好到最后一位(1992)。它涵盖了这个问题很好:讨论了需要和事情是如何在各种平台(SPARC, PC, HP, 30+其他)，并提供了一个解决方案算法，为所有双从-DBL_MAX到DBL_MAX的高质量结果。

如果原始参数以度为单位，但可能值很大，则首先使用fmod()以提高精度。一个好的fmod()将不会引入任何错误，从而提供出色的范围缩小。

// sin(degrees2radians(x))
sin(degrees2radians(fmod(x, 360.0))); // -360.0 < fmod(x,360) < +360.0

各种三角恒等式和remquo()提供了更多的改进。示例:信德()