From:	Paul Shirley <Paul AT foobar DOT co DOT uk DOT chocolat>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: doubles vs. floats
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:22:24 +0000
Organization:	wot? me?
Lines:	13
Distribution:	world
Message-ID:	<KyW5HCAANE+yEwij@foobar.co.uk>
References:	<32F00F92 DOT 1662 AT bc DOT sympatico DOT ca>
	<199701310251 DOT MAA23590 AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
Reply-To:	Paul Shirley <junk AT defeating DOT email DOT address>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	chocolat.foobar.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <199701310251 DOT MAA23590 AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>, Leath Muller
<leathm AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au> writes
> On pre-pentium, the conversion takes time. :) 

NOT AS FAR AS THE USER KNOWS! (Can you tell I'm getting annoyed?)

On 8087,80287 and 80387 using a 32 bit float is *ALWAYS* faster than a
64 bit double. Check the bloody manual.
On a 486/7 a float is the same speed in theory, in practice it will be
*faster* than a double because of caching/bus width effects.

---
Paul Shirley: shuffle chocolat before foobar for my real email address

- Raw text -