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