Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:29 +0100
Dann Corbit wrote:
3. If 128 bit platforms are also included, it would mean yet another version. Of course, the Cephes collection handles all of this nicely. I think it would be good to make the Cepehs collection a "Reference" implementation which can be selected or ignored because it is so fully complete.
Cephes is very good. Lcc-win uses Cephes internally. I have rewritten
the 352 bit part of it in assembler, extended some functions, and
integrated them into the package.
[snip]
In C++ there is a nice work around, since I can use QD:
http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/mpdist/
to create my own double-double and quad-double libraries to get lots more precision if I want it but using C it would be a real pain. Without a hardware type, intermediate precisions like that become an ugly mess of library calls instead of the simple, fundamental algorithms that they ought to be.
Not in lcc-win since lcc-win accepts operator overloading,
precisely because of the points you make above.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Dann Corbit
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- References:
- What's the deal with C99?
- From: Bartc
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Paul Hsieh
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Paul Hsieh
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Ioannis Vranos
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: santosh
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: What's the deal with C99?
- From: Dann Corbit
- What's the deal with C99?
- Prev by Date: Re: Implementation-defined behaviour
- Next by Date: Re: What's the deal with C99?
- Previous by thread: Re: What's the deal with C99?
- Next by thread: Re: What's the deal with C99?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|