Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:39:58 -0700
lawrence.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Eric Sosman <esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote [re double double]:
[*] Although one wonders why `long double' wasn't used
instead.
Because double double (using a pair of doubles to represent a single
floating-point number) in the general case doesn't adhere to the
standard's floating-point model and thus isn't a valid implementation of
long double. To be a valid long double implementation, you would have
to restrict the exponents to make the fraction bits contiguous rather
than allowing a gap or overlap.
I don't quite understand. Are you talking about the layout of the
fraction bits in the representation of the type? I don't see how
making then non-contiguous would violate the C standard (assuming
__STDC_IEC_559__ isn't defined).
How is a pair of doubles used to represent a single floating-point
number anyway?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Walter Roberson
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- References:
- is order urgent doubt
- From: new to c
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Flash Gordon
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Walter Roberson
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: lawrence . jones
- is order urgent doubt
- Prev by Date: Re: warning while making cast
- Next by Date: Re: Marking a Page of Memory Executable
- Previous by thread: Re: is order urgent doubt
- Next by thread: Re: is order urgent doubt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|