Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-19 Thread John R. Hogerhuis
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 8:00 AM Ken Pettit wrote: > On 7/18/19 6:20 PM, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > > > I guess the value of (packed) BCD is multiply / divide by 10 is a bit > > shift operation. And base 10 rounding operations are straightforward. > > > > You don't even need a bit shift ... just

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-19 Thread Ken Pettit
On 7/18/19 6:20 PM, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: I guess the value of (packed) BCD is multiply / divide by 10 is a bit shift operation. And base 10 rounding operations are straightforward. You don't even need a bit shift ... just subtract 1 from the exponent value. Also converting to ASCII

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread Willard Goosey
In article , John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > I noticed Woz's 6502 code is well commented and on the web. It looks like > it uses a binary mantissa. If you're looking for an 8080 fp lib, the one extracted from Lawrence Livermore Labs BASIC (LLLBASIC) has a pretty good rep. The one inside Processor

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread John R. Hogerhuis
I noticed Woz's 6502 code is well commented and on the web. It looks like it uses a binary mantissa. I guess the value of (packed) BCD is multiply / divide by 10 is a bit shift operation. And base 10 rounding operations are straightforward. -- John.

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread Willard Goosey
In article , John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > Actually thinking some more about it, why would BCD floating point code > be more compact even in ROM? I haven't really looked, but the 8085 might be at nearly as efficient at BCD as pure binary. Also, the M100 was the "Micro Executive WorkStation",

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread John Gardner
I've wondered about that too - "Radix-100" FP used on TI CC40/TI74/TI95 programmables used an 8-byte format, byte 0 being the exponent biased so that 40 = 0, and a 7-byte BCD mantissa. ... On 7/18/19, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > Actually thinking some more about it, why would BCD

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread John R. Hogerhuis
Actually thinking some more about it, why would BCD floating point code be more compact even in ROM? Seems like BCD floats would be inefficient in every way. -- John.

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-18 Thread Willard Goosey
In article <5d2f2bc9.4010...@gmail.com>, Ken Pettit wrote: > Hey John, > I was reading the posts about posits ... pretty interesting. > But the Model T ROM doesn't actually use IEEE floating point format ... > It uses a format where the first byte contains the sign bit and 7-bit >

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-17 Thread John R. Hogerhuis
Ah, all good points! I didn't figure the ROM used IEEE floating point, but I didn't realize how different it was! -- John.

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-17 Thread Ken Pettit
Hey John, I was reading the posts about posits ... pretty interesting. But the Model T ROM doesn't actually use IEEE floating point format ... It uses a format where the first byte contains the sign bit and 7-bit exponent, followed by 3 or 7 bytes of BCD encoded data. For the exponent, 40h

Re: [M100] Posits versus floating point

2019-07-17 Thread Alex ...
Nice to see there's still work being done on the low level parts of compander science.  On Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 16:59 John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > Something new under the sun? > > Tangentially related, but I thought this was interesting. The Model T ROM > uses 32-bit single precision and 64-bit