X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 3 961213 -bs- Delivered-To: pcg AT goof DOT com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:59:01 +0200 (EET) From: Tuukka Toivonen X-Sender: tuukkat AT stekt10 To: Marc Lehmann cc: beastium Subject: Re: paranoia & extra precision [was -fno-float-store in pgcc] In-Reply-To: <19980312234235.53559@cerebro.laendle> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Marc Lehmann Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1601 Lines: 40 On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Marc Lehmann wrote: >yeah, it's even worse.. so you have sth. between 53 and 80 bits of precision. - If you want extended precision -> store values in memory with 10 bytes. You'll get always 80 bits precision. - If you want to use `double' format with some extra precision, just set high precision on and use doubles. - If you want IEEE-compliance, set FPU to low precision and everything is right again. The hardware makes all of this possible. Don't blame FPU if C compiler can not do it (again, I don't say it couldn't; I don't know). >(slow code). to my knowledge, no compiler goes the slow way >by default ;) It doesn't do it by default. You are saying that if user wants low precision from _transcendental_ functions, it will be slow code? Transcendental functions are slow anyway so to round them to 64-bitness doesn't make code slower almost at all. For functions being not transcendental, that doesn't make sense at all since lower precision is faster. >pragma = nono ;) until c9x adds the _Pragma syntax, #pragma's are just >useless. I think that I read somewhere why #pragma's shouldn't be use. I think it would be nice way to 'hint' the compiler... I don't understand what's the problem with them? Everyone except GCC uses them. (Well... at least Borland/Watcom :) -- | Tuukka Toivonen [PGP public key | Homepage: http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~tuukkat/ available] | Try also finger -l tuukkat AT ee DOT oulu DOT fi | Studying information engineering at the University of Oulu +-----------------------------------------------------------