>
> (Presumably PNaCl exposes the same problem?)
>
Yes.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> We didn't get to them at the July meeting. I'll put them on the agenda
> for Sept.
>
Thanks.
> The likely proposal will be to provide a Math.demormz(x) function and
> perhaps also Math.fdzround(x)
>
I'd be interested in the details:
Were denormals discussed at the TC39 meeting? I can't seem to find them in
the meeting notes.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> So: Are there compelling enough use cases for #b and #c that we should
> care about them?
I don't think so, but Jens seems to disagree. Simulations and
root-finding problems in my experience use smaller precision numbers
(e.g. i16, f16 or f32) to hillclimb close to the solution faster, and
then
Here are a few thoughts about denorms (a.k.a. subnormals as of 2008) from a
discussion a few months ago with John Mccutchan, Dave Herman, Luke Wagner
and Dan Gohman.
A few facts to start off with:
- The current SIMD proposal doesn't specify how denormals behave.
- ECMA-262 specifies denorma
5 matches
Mail list logo
