Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 10:02:53 -0800 From: "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@geli.com> To: Mark Diekhans <markd@grizzly.com> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, julian@ref.tfs.com Subject: Re: NPX still broken in 2.1.0-951104-SNAP... Message-ID: <199511061802.KAA24338@geli.clusternet> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 08:09:20 PST." <199511061609.IAA08229@Grizzly.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an interesting discussion of an area with an immense amount of work behind it. More portable numerical software is relying on specific numerical tests that have well defined (by the IEEE standard) results for given inputs, but are ruined by the various unimplemented pieces such as the given examples show. David Hough was until recently probably one the most energetic people in this area. He produced a test suite that compared a system's actual response to the "correct" response in many different ways. I'm going to try dig this up. It's easy to get religious about the area, but it is hard figure out the best tradeoff between implementation and performance. I'd prefer if the IEEE behaviour could match the behaviour of Sun, SGI, IBM, and DEC, in that order. Russell rcarter@geli.com Russell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511061802.KAA24338>