Roman Kononov wrote:
On 12/27/2006 01:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced that you're fixing things so much as doing your best
to destroy IEEE-compliant float arithmetic behavior.
I think what we should probably consider is removing CheckFloat4Val
and CheckFloat8Val altogether,
Applied.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
and not throw an error?
Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This is *not* going in the right direction :-(
Well, then show me what direction you think is better.
Fewer restrictions, not more. The thrust of what I've been saying
(and I think Roman too) is to trust in the hardware float-arithmetic
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
This is *not* going in the right direction :-(
Well, then show me what direction you think is better.
Fewer restrictions, not more. The thrust of what I've been saying
(and I think Roman too) is to trust in the
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
and not throw an error?
Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
implementations and won't
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
and not throw an error?
Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
On 12/29/2006 12:23 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, then show me what direction you think is better.
Think about this idea please. This has no INF, NaN or range
checks and detects all bad cases with any floating point
math.
The only issue is that a bad case is detected only once.
You need to
Roman Kononov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Think about this idea please. This has no INF, NaN or range
checks and detects all bad cases with any floating point
math.
Doesn't even compile here (no fenv.h).
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On 12/29/2006 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Doesn't even compile here (no fenv.h).
Where do you compile?
Roman
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't excited about doing one isinf() call to avoid three, so I just
made a fast isinf() macro:
/*We call isinf() a lot, so we use a fast version in this file */
#define fast_isinf(val) (((val) DBL_MIN || (val)
11 matches
Mail list logo
