Should java be enabled for non-IEEE FP architectures?

Should java be enabled for non-IEEE FP architectures?

[Matt Thomas]

Since Java specifies that it must use IEEE FP, should Java even
be enabled on architecures that don't implement IEEE FP (such as
the VAX)?

--
Matt Thomas               Internet:   matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry      WWW URL:    http://www.3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA             Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message

Should java be enabled for non-IEEE FP architectures?

[Andrew Haley]

Matt Thomas writes:
 > Since Java specifies that it must use IEEE FP, should Java even
 > be enabled on architecures that don't implement IEEE FP (such as
 > the VAX)?

Sure, as long as it works.  It's still a useful language.

However, I don't know that the FP code would work.

Andrew.

Re: Should java be enabled for non-IEEE FP architectures?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

Robert> AFter all nearly all Java implementations on the x86 cheat and
Robert> do not use exactly the right fpt model (it is too expensive to
Robert> do so :-)

Java was redefined so that this is no longer considered cheating.
Post-1.2 an implementation is only required to implement the exact
semantics in `strictfp' classes and constant expressions.

We don't really implement strictfp yet.

Tom

Re: Should java be enabled for non-IEEE FP architectures?

[Robert Dewar]

<Since Java specifies that it must use IEEE FP, should Java even
be enabled on architecures that don't implement IEEE FP (such as
the VAX)?
>

I don't see any great harm, as long as the limitation is understood.
AFter all nearly all Java implementations on the x86 cheat and do
not use exactly the right fpt model (it is too expensive to do so :-)