On 02/26/2010 07:07 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Despite all that exchange, I don't think you ever answered Andreas's > question - at least not in a way that I could understand. A size of > what? The size of the *type* on x86 is 16; the size of the *data > bits* is 10. But what cares about the size of the data bits rather > than e.g. the size of the mantissa? > I'm tired. Anyway, I meant of course the size of the *data bits*, using your terminology. For *some* formats, like x87, where there are no holes, no padding bits in the middle of the representation, that is all I would need. In the meanwhile, Andreas made me notice that unfortunately this is not the general case. Thanks again about that.
Paolo.
