Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Oh really? Well I'll let you travel back in time and argue with numerous
former colleagues who've routinely found differences between their
"fortran" (-IV, -77 or whatever) and "fast fortran" compilers which in
those days tended to be separate programs even if supplied
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I read the link before posting. You aren't going to represent 1/3 or Pi
exactly in BCD either.
Again, that is not the point. Read the technical docs before posting.
Adriaan van Os
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@list
On 19/11/17 12:15, Bo Berglund wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:14:50 +, Mark Morgan
Lloyd wrote:
I think we're in broad agreement though: don't try converting backend >code unless
you know exactly what you're doing, and Pascal (including >Lazarus/LCL etc.) can
be valuable when implementing
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:14:50 +, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
>I think we're in broad agreement though: don't try converting backend
>code unless you know exactly what you're doing, and Pascal (including
>Lazarus/LCL etc.) can be valuable when implementing a C21st frontend :-)
We do have the or
On 19/11/17 10:15, Adriaan van Os wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
That obviously applies to all languages, I've never come across >
something which can represent 1/3 or pi exactly.
If you do read what is written in the link - that is not the issue. The
issue is how to interpret floating-point c
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
That obviously applies to all languages, I've never come across
something which can represent 1/3 or pi exactly.
If you do read what is written in the link - that is not the issue. The issue is how to interpret
floating-point constants and how to convert single-precis
On 19/11/17 04:00, Adriaan van Os wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:> I think that conventional wisdom is that if
somebody's written numerical > analysis code you don't change it
gratuitously, since any alterations > will change rounding errors etc.
For some reason, that seems to apply > particula
