Kevin Ryde wrote:
> "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Subtracting one produces a significant of all
>> 1-bits: 2**53 - 1 = +0x1.fp+52,
>
> Yes.
>
>> and that is the
>> next-to-largest exactly representable whole number in this arithmetic
>> system. Its floor is
Stephen Compall wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 13:53 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>> 2) The above code uses DBL_MANT_DIG macro. How can I easily find out
>> where this macro is defined? Is there any book or reference which discuss
>> this kind of macros. For now I did a grep in /usr/include
"Nelson H. F. Beebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Subtracting one produces a significant of all
> 1-bits: 2**53 - 1 = +0x1.fp+52,
Yes.
> and that is the
> next-to-largest exactly representable whole number in this arithmetic
> system. Its floor is identical, so "x == floor()" is
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 13:53 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> 2) The above code uses DBL_MANT_DIG macro. How can I easily find out where
> this macro is defined? Is there any book or reference which discuss this
> kind of macros. For now I did a grep in /usr/include and found that such a
> macr
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi asks today:
>> ...
>> x = ldexp (1.0, DBL_MANT_DIG) - 1.0;
>> assert (x == floor (x)); /* should be an integer already */
>>
>> here ldexp and floor both return double values. Is it guaranteed that
>> asserting the equality of two double values will always wo
I was browsing the source code of guile 1.8.2 and have couple of trivial
questions. I would be very grateful if you can answer the following
questions.
1) In test-suite/standalone/test-round.c (lines 90-96) we have
/* 2^DBL_MANT_DIG-1
In the past scm_c_round had incorrectly increm
