On 08/21/10 12:00 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2010-08-21 07:55, Carl Witty wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
Unless OS X rounds by default to 64-bits, I can't understand how this would
have ever worked. Why was it not necessary to change the rounding behavior
of
On 2010-Aug-21 05:26:36 +0100, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>it is clear that the quad double algorithm assumes that the floating point
>processor rounds to 64-bits, which things like PowerPC and SPARC do.
>
>But Intel and AMD CPUs round to 80 bits by default. As such, on Intel/AMD
>CPUs,
>the qu
On 2010-08-21 07:55, Carl Witty wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> Unless OS X rounds by default to 64-bits, I can't understand how this would
>> have ever worked. Why was it not necessary to change the rounding behavior
>> of an Intel based OS X system?
>
> Mo
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Unless OS X rounds by default to 64-bits, I can't understand how this would
> have ever worked. Why was it not necessary to change the rounding behavior
> of an Intel based OS X system?
Modern x86 family chips actually have two totally se
Something is puzzling me, and I'm hoping someone can help resolve it.
As you may know, SYMPOW is presenting problems on Cygwin and Solaris. Having
read the paper in the 'docs' directory of the quad-double package:
http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/mpdist/qd-2.3.11.tar.gz
it is clear that the quad
