Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #2086

Re: Unum numbers

Show all headers | View raw

Am 13.04.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Joshua Cranmer 🐧:

> I understand that the newest proposal returns to fixed-width size.

This and further simplifications IMO didn't make the last (Posit)
variant much more practical. At least had I moved the variable-sized
Regime bitfield to the end of the number, so that exponent and
fraction keep starting at fixed bit positions. In a hardware
implementation this modification will save some shift cycles in the
compression and expansion between the external Posit format and the
internal quire registers.

> Beyond that, the only thing I really know about unums is that their
> inventor claims them and interval arithmetic to eliminate the need for
> numerical analysts, which is contested by one of the leads of the IEEE
> 754 standard, and I'm not really qualified to comment on this debate.

For Posit numbers of 32 bit size the author suggests a quire register
size of at least 256 bit, which is much larger than the 83 bit
accumulator in the IEEE hardware. For 64 bit size 512 bytes are
suggested as a minimum, and for full IEEE "double" compatibility with
11 exponent bits a size of 524288 bits is suggested. So many register
bits may help with certain numerical problems in computations, but not
when afterwards a result is stored in 64 bits again. E.g. the external
format requires at least 11 bits for the representation of all
integral numbers up to 64, with 3 more bits for every next quadruple
integer (1 regime bit, 2 fraction bits).

I'm too lazy to write a simulation of both the Posit and a super size
IEEE implementation, so that the presented benchmark codes could be
compared when calculated with the same quire register size.

DoDi

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Unum numbers Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-12 10:29 +0200
  Re: Unum numbers Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2018-04-12 23:13 -0400
    Re: Unum numbers Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-18 10:50 +0200

csiph-web