From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 13:58:49
Indeed, I doubt if long double is practically useful for many applications -
even 16 decimal place 64-bit double will be impracticable on MSVC where there
isn't really a long double (you may need to use 80-bit calculations to get a
64-bit accuracy result).
But I don't believe that this is a problem - exp, sin etc don't really work for
long double on MSVC either! And many implementations are not fully accurate -
nor would one necessarily want to wait while they calculate to full accuracy.
The Standard does not, and should not, make any requirements about accuracy,
memory size or speed.
So I feel they are panicing a bit.
Paul A Bristow, 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 Beman Dawes
| Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:17 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: RE: [boost] C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions
| At 04:21 AM 4/23/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
| >I feel Boost can also help by providing just one working implementation,
| >even if just at 32-bit float accuracy, so any vendor who doesn't feel
| >willing or able to provide a better one can still offer the Boost one
| >and claim compliance.
| What worried the vendors wasn't the float accuracy, but the long double
| One particular worry was that the amount of machine time required would be
| on the order of months.
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk