* Jonathan S. Shapiro: > But there is a simpler way that I have never seen documented: > > 1. Convert the entire significand to a 64-bit unsigned integer, keeping > track of where the decimal point was found but otherwise ignoring it, as if > the significand was an integer-valued literal having no decimal point. Take > care to stop if the integer result would overflow. In the event of > overflow, the integer value *before* the overflowing computation > contains all of the needed significant digits for the final floating point > value.
This is not true. 0.999999999999999722444243843710864894092082977294921875 => 0.9999999999999998 0.99999999999999972244424384371086489409208297729492187 => 0.9999999999999997 Base conversion is complicated. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
