Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: higher precision doubles Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:16:49 -0400 Organization: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: FX7YT0MrT5XuIdnXUtxBjg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7002 On 09/08/2011 7:07 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > My understanding when strictfp was being added was that the x86 > instruction set allowed for efficient rounding to the correct 32 and 64 > bit mantissa widths, but did not allow for the overflow and underflow > processing to be done based on the correct exponent widths. Remind me: why was it considered desirable for (non-strict) arithmetic not to use however much precision was available to it? (Anyone needing strict adherence to IEEE 32-bit or 64-bit FP arithmetic would be using strictfp anyway, after all.)