Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:26:20 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Subject: Re: Number of significand bits in long double? Message-ID: <20050805.112620.11658206.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050805074916.GD2104@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20050804191547.GB2104@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20050804193030.GA97987@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20050805074916.GD2104@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message: <20050805074916.GD2104@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> writes:
: >> See the LDBL_* macros in <float.h> for native precision.
: >
: >That's the problem. The LDBL* macros misrepresent the
: >actual precision used.
:
: I had a closer look. In 4.x, LDBL_* just points to DBL_*. imp@
: changed it to reflect the native hardware precision in v1.9.
:
: IMHO, it would be nice to run the i386 in native precision but that
: opens up a can of worms (since expressions will wind up being
: evaluated in different precisions depending on whether the compiler
: needs to spill registers onto the stack and whether temporary
: variables are registers or stack).
Yes. I tried to change the default mask to to do the right thing, but
bde and you (I think) convinced me to not commit that change.
Warner
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050805.112620.11658206.imp>