Date:	Sat, 10 May 2003 21:45:04 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
Message-Id:	<3995-Sat10May2003214504+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200305101733.h4AHXKtd020020@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject:	Re: float_t and double_t
References:	<200305101733 DOT h4AHXKtd020020 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:33:20 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> 1. Most efficient? As in speed I suppose.
> 
> 2. Which is the most efficient? As all fp operations are done as long
> double within the CPU (IIRC), is my guess that long double is as
> efficient as any of the other two correct? Does this apply to the 387
> FPU as well?
> 
> 3. Should we define them to long double then?

I think we should write test programs and see which one is the
fastest.  It could be that both are fast enough, in which case float_t
should be float and double_t should be double.

- Raw text -