Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-11 14:23:01

Hi Vicente,

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> the recent discussion on the MultiplePrecission Arithmetic library has
> show that some people has its ow fixed point library.

You might like to review old discussions of fixed point, e.g.:

and several other threads.

> Is there an interest in a Boost library having as base

Thanks for pointing out that doc which I'd not seen before. I've not
yet read it properly.

FWIW, my view is that:

- Some people conflate fixed point with features like saturation, which
I would prefer to decouple. Fixed-point arithmetic without saturation
is useful, as is integer arithmetic with saturation. So I'd prefer to
make them orthogonal, but compatible, concepts.

- There are difficult decisions to make about the result types of
arithmetic operations, analogous to this:

   int32_t a, b;
   int64_t c;
   c = a+b; // oops.

It is tempting to make the return type of e.g. operator+ large enough
to accommodate the largest possible sum, and to truncate only when the
assignment occurs. But I think this will have an unavoidable runtime
overhead. Some will argue that expression templates can be used to
work around this, but that dramatically increases the complexity of the library.

- There are also difficult decisions to make about implicit and
explicit conversions.

These are some of the same questions that you asked in your post.
Different people will have different requirements. It is perhaps
because of this that everyone tends to "roll their own", and no
standard implementation has emerged.

Regards, Phil.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at