Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC)
John Harper <harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sparc. Sorry, I didn't know exactly which info you needed.
Of the 4 compilers I used, only Sun f95 supports quad precision.
No "Oops!" with that program when converted to quad. Modifying it for
even more extended precision is not a game I want to play on the last
working day before Christmas!
I believe the problem is mostly x86. Kahan has some articles on
the advantages of keeping intermediate values in extended precision.
I believe that he wants consistent use of extended precision, which is
not what happens in most cases. The problem with x87 is that to do it
right, intermediate values must be stored and reloaded, hopefully
through a cache. It still slows it down much more than anyone wants.
If only intermediate values within an expression were kept in
extended precision then at least one could explicitly store values
to remove extra precision. With most optimizers, that doesn't even
work. (Assuming optimizing between statements is on.)
On MIPS, SPARC, HP-PA, and Alpha you should not see Oops!.
-- glen
.
- References:
- Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: Bil Kleb
- Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: Steven G. Kargl
- Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: John Harper
- Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- From: John Harper
- Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- Prev by Date: Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- Next by Date: Re: one element in the inverse matrix
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- Next by thread: Re: Machine/Compiler Independent Results
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|