Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:37:34 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu Cc: tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/36783 Message-ID: <20020412.123734.61861702.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <200204121822.g3CIM4491247@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <200204121639.g3CGdOZ90234@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20020412.121645.03985114.imp@village.org> <200204121822.g3CIM4491247@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200204121822.g3CIM4491247@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
: <<On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:16:45 -0600 (MDT), "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> said:
:
: > This is no longer true. Long doubles can and do give better precision
: > than doubles, but at a high performance cost.
:
: Is GCC now emitting code to change the rounding mode from 53-bit to
: 80-bit whenever it works with long doubles?
I haven't looked at the generated code, but I think so. I've been
able to get better precision from long doubles than doubles in
experimental code. (eg, 1 + epsilon allows me a smaller epsilon with
long double than double).
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020412.123734.61861702.imp>