
Boost : 
From: Matt Gruenke (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 20080801 04:21:12
Anthony Williams wrote:
> "John C. Femiani" <john.femiani_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Also, do your implementations for /= and *= actually round? You
>> actually seem to be using the round policy for conversions, is that
>> right? Have you looked at the numeric/conversion stuff? (I haven't
>> grokked it yet).
>>
>
> The division throws away the lower "frac_bits" of the result:
>
Speaking of division, while I'd expect /= to return the same type as the
LHS operand, the way I've previously implemented fixed point division is
to return:
result_int_bits = (numer_int_bits + denom_frac_bits + 1)
result_frac_bits = (numer_frac_bits + denom_int_bits  1)
It's a little easier to understand the rationale, if you separately
consider 1/x and x * y. For 1/x, returning the following avoids
overflow and is reversible (if the result happens to be exact):
result_int_bits = input_frac_bits + 1
result_frac_bits = denom_int_bits 1
The result of x * y is obviously:
result_int_bits = x_int_bits + y_int_bits
result_frac_bits = x_frac_bits + y_frac_bits
Then, x/y is simply viewed as multiplication by the inverse of y, but
computed in one shot.
I haven't implemented /=, but I'd be tempted to compute it with less
intermediate precision (i.e. only prescaling the numerator by
2^denom_frac_bits). I suppose, depending on rounding policy, you could
compute it with an extra bit that gets rounded off.
Matt
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk