[M3devel] C99 FloatMode stuff

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
The problem (and I don't think this for personal reasons, that I write at all), is as as Dr. Nelson rule of the thumb:
"If there is one paper about a problem, it has been solved, but If there are 100 papers it probably hasn't been solved"
Thanks in advance

--- El jue, 17/5/12, Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] C99 FloatMode stuff
Para: "Daniel Alejandro Benavides D." <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
CC: "Mika Nystrom" <mika at async.caltech.edu>, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>, "Jay K" <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo, 2012 21:49

I'm sorry Daniel, but almost all your emails make no sense or at best are just wrong.
 - Jay (briefly/pocket-sized-computer-aka-phone)
On May 17, 2012, at 3:27 PM, "Daniel Alejandro Benavides D." <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es> wrote:

Hi all:
if not then either that value doesn't sound as a machine value since the OS must care at least of constant values in memory (you can't allow values larger than what memory supports) or (whichever library they had created) is "their standard" , I don't think C standards are very precise, in fact, they are bad, who needs C standards, who created or thinks knows the standards.
What the argot I would like to see are:
Infinity values, epsilon, and  memory limits under such that limit values holds, that is, you can't represent epsilon with little value of memory.
This would be the jargon of such libraries, instead they just make them a internal operation of their own calculation, which I can't trust, in summary this thing is unsound. Then the interface is UNSAFE for real which can't be a very standard thing by the way.
Thanks in
 advance

--- El jue, 17/5/12, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: RE: [M3devel] C99 FloatMode stuff
Para: dabenavidesd at yahoo.es, "Mika Nystrom" <mika at async.caltech.edu>, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo, 2012 13:46




No Daniel. 


Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:18:52 +0100
From: dabenavidesd at yahoo.es
Subject: Re: [M3devel] C99 FloatMode stuff
To: mika at async.caltech.edu; m3devel at elegosoft.com; jay.krell at cornell.edu

Hi all:
I believe they are in system limits.h aren't they.
BTW, such max value should be violated by RT checks for the same value? If it isn't then you need to use a long address value to represent its numerical value without violating anything, right? Anyway you would need an unsigned Word for doing that, that is a LongWord.
Thanks in advance.

--- El jue, 17/5/12, Jay K
 <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: [M3devel] C99 FloatMode stuff
Para: "Mika Nystrom" <mika at async.caltech.edu>, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo, 2012 01:10




Mika, are FE_UNDERFLOW and such constants?
Specifically, if so, we can implement them more efficiently, as constant data, instead of via functions.
see m3core/src/unix/Common/Uconstants.c

There is a certain elegant generality to using functions, but exposing constant data should be /slightly/ more efficient.

 - Jay
 		 	   		  
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20120518/265f116f/attachment-0002.html>