> I have a problem with valgrind since I did convert > my program to use long double instead double on > critical points. Here is an example code: [snipped]
> Due to that precision loss, I cannot further use valgrind. Some numeric > integals etc. heavily depend on numeric precision... valgrind handling only single- and double-precision floating point is well documented. If 53 bits of fractional precision are not enough, then the question becomes, "Why are 64 bits enough? Why aren't 2*53 bits, or 53+64 bits, or 2*64 bits, or more, required?" If you must have both such high precision and valgrind, then convert to software double precision. Represent each quantity by the sum of two 'double's, such that the difference in exponents is near 53. [Have fun with the many corner cases: exponent underflow, ...] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
