* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
@ 2009-01-02 17:03 ` schwab at suse dot de
2009-01-02 19:38 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2009-01-02 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2009-01-02 17:02 -------
Depending on the actual value of DECIMAL_DIG this does not really look bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-02 17:03 ` [Bug c/38704] " schwab at suse dot de
@ 2009-01-02 19:38 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-02 20:16 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: lisp2d at lisp2d dot net @ 2009-01-02 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2009-01-02 19:37 -------
Quantity of correct bits is 64, the size of long double is 128 bits.
Half of quality is reached by usage of operations multiplication, divisions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-02 17:03 ` [Bug c/38704] " schwab at suse dot de
2009-01-02 19:38 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
@ 2009-01-02 20:16 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-03 0:14 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-02 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-02 20:14 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Quantity of correct bits is 64, the size of long double is 128 bits.
>
> Half of quality is reached by usage of operations multiplication, divisions.
>
What does 'grep LDBL /usr/include/float.h' show?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-02 20:16 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-03 0:14 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-03 0:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: lisp2d at lisp2d dot net @ 2009-01-03 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2009-01-03 00:12 -------
__LDBL_DIG__=18
__DBL_DIG__=15
sizeof(long double)=128 bits
sizeof(double)=64 bits
It is named the legalised crime.
If the program is written incorrectly no law will correct it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-03 0:14 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
@ 2009-01-03 0:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-03 0:43 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-03 0:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 00:17 -------
What target is this on?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-03 0:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-03 0:43 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-03 17:21 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-09 9:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-03 0:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 00:42 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> __LDBL_DIG__=18
> __DBL_DIG__=15
>
> sizeof(long double)=128 bits
> sizeof(double)=64 bits
>
You didn't show what I requested. The other piece
of the puzzle is LDBL_MANT_DIG, which I'll wager is
64. I suspect that you may be misinterpreting what
sizeof() is telling you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-03 0:43 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-03 17:21 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
2009-01-09 9:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: lisp2d at lisp2d dot net @ 2009-01-03 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2009-01-03 17:19 -------
The type long double does not have uniform standard.
Confusion has turned out.
Accuracy of type double suits me.
Let's complete this talk.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/38704] Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers.
2009-01-02 15:38 [Bug c/38704] New: Very bad quality of compilation of a floating point numbers lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-03 17:21 ` lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
@ 2009-01-09 9:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2009-01-09 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from schwab at suse dot de 2009-01-09 09:09 -------
Not a bug.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread