Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ieee arithmetic"
(→Not IEEE arithmetic, nor maths) |
(→Not IEEE arithmetic, nor maths) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''--[[User:Colin-adams|Colin-adams]] 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)''' | '''--[[User:Colin-adams|Colin-adams]] 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)''' | ||
| − | + | '''Not IEEE arithmetic, nor maths''', NaN = NaN is never true. And placing NaNs in a sort order isn't write either - REAL_32/64 are not totally ordered types. | |
| − | NaN = NaN is never true. | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | And placing NaNs in a sort order isn't write either - REAL_32/64 are not totally ordered types. | + | |
:'''--[[User:Manus|manus]] 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)''' How do you solve the problem of assertions then in ARRAY.put for example? | :'''--[[User:Manus|manus]] 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)''' How do you solve the problem of assertions then in ARRAY.put for example? | ||
Revision as of 09:57, 3 February 2010
Most probably C compilers inline functions, but just to be sure, I'd convert them into the macros:
#define to_raw_bits(d) *((EIF_NATURAL_64*)&(d)) #define eif_is_nan_bits(value) ((value & ~RTU64C(0x8000000000000000)) > RTU64C(0x7ff0000000000000)) #define eif_is_nan(v) ((*((EIF_NATURAL_64 *)&(v)) & ~RTU64C(0x8000000000000000)) > RTU64C(0x7ff0000000000000))
Does it affect the benchmarks?
--Colin-adams 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Not IEEE arithmetic, nor maths, NaN = NaN is never true. And placing NaNs in a sort order isn't write either - REAL_32/64 are not totally ordered types.
- --manus 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) How do you solve the problem of assertions then in ARRAY.put for example?
