> Wrong question. Much harware has NO hardware support (FPU)
> for any floating point, so it is done in the CPU, not FPU.
Is anybody running on a system without hardware for floating point?
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing
Yo Hal!
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:07:18 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> How much hardware has support for long doubles?
Wrong question. Much harware has NO hardware support (FPU) for any
floating point, so it is done in the CPU, not FPU.
Right question: how many C compilers support long dou
Hal Murray :
>
> >> We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing
> >> problems.
>
> > No, but changing the code *back* before 1.0 was a thing I didn't want to do.
>
> I was surprised you put that change in that close to 1.0. Taking it back
> should have been a simple rev
>> We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing
>> problems.
> No, but changing the code *back* before 1.0 was a thing I didn't want to do.
I was surprised you put that change in that close to 1.0. Taking it back
should have been a simple revert.
> I rememenber now thi
Hal Murray :
>
> > Dropping long double opened a can of worms about overflow/precision problems
> > and how to redo the pivot logic that I didn't want to broach while were
> > trying to avoid destabilizing changes.
>
> We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing problems.
> Dropping long double opened a can of worms about overflow/precision problems
> and how to redo the pivot logic that I didn't want to broach while were
> trying to avoid destabilizing changes.
We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing problems.
> Now would be a reason
Hal Murray :
>
> devel@ntpsec.org said:
> > I thought that was still under some discussion when we shipped. Remind me
> > what the patch was?
>
> I got the impression that you pretty much vetoed it and/or weren't interested
> in more discussion. I could easily have misread whatever you said.
>
