From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-08 06:19:45
I think we should stick to radix 2 for starters
unless I hear some shouts for any other radix.
Itty Bitty Machines always were a bit odd!
Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK
+44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Gabriel Dos Reis
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:03 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library-
> "Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> One of my previous points is that it is unwise to assume that just
> because you're using IEEE-754 system means that the long double
> datatype is 80 bits wide. If you take an IEEE-754 plateform like a
> SPARC, you get a 128 bits. Some IEEE-754 plateforms use 96 bits.
> That means that a scalable way to tackle the issue it to parameterize
> on the relevant FP system description as given by numeric_limits<>.
WE are all agreed on this and a switch seems the most attractive.
I can provide the intervals for any value of digits == number of significand
Are there any cases where numeric_limits<>::digits is unreliable.
> | (Are there really any machines using radix other than 2 that we need to
> | cater for?)
> If you have users with some IBM machines with radix = 16, then you'll
> have to add the support. I know I did use such a system for
> computations a year ago. However, I can't tell you whether I'll use it
> in the near future or not -- I'm not yet graduated in Madame Soleil
> magic :-) :-)
> -- Gaby
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk