delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sat, 13 May 2000 17:21:01 -0400 (EDT) |
Message-Id: | <200005132121.RAA16244@indy.delorie.com> |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | "Dieter Buerssner" <buers AT gmx DOT de> |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <200005121903.PAA29374@delorie.com> (buers@gmx.de) |
Subject: | Re: Math functions |
References: | <200005121903 DOT PAA29374 AT delorie DOT com> |
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: "Dieter Buerssner" <buers AT gmx DOT de> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:11:49 +0200 > > From my testing, the floating point functions built into the FPU are > normally better than 2^-63 (when called with an argument correctly > reduced to the supported range). When this is an acceptable error > (which I think it is), the functions won't be slow. When this is not > an acceptable error, I can't do it :-( What about functions that aren't built into the FPU? They are the majority, IIRC.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |