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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #19354

Re: Odd benchmark behavior

Show all headers | View raw

io_x wrote:
> 
> "pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:4F727C20.5A49@mindspring.com...
> > io_x wrote:
> >>
> >> "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:4f71688a$0$1383$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> >>
> >> there is someone that know if  (unsigned) sqrt(9.0) can be
> >> follow the C standard the unsigned 2???
> >> Thank you
> >
> > You could do it this way instead:
> >
> > la:
> >    v = p;
> >    for (i = ((1 == v) + v) / 2; v > i; i = (p / v + v) / 2) {
> >        v = i;
> >    }
> 
> the above is wrong, for example
> if p==0 than v=0, i=0/2=0; 0>0 is false;
> so i=0/0 and here seg fault

After 0>0 is false, the loop stops 
and then there is no i=0/0.


 
> if 0.0<p<1.0  i have some doubit too

> it depend how they round float number

This is the code that you wrote:

    #define  u32  uint32_t

    u32    i, p, cnt, v;

There are no float numbers in that code.


-- 
pete

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Odd benchmark behavior Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2012-03-26 07:51 +0000
  Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-26 11:26 +0200
    Re: Odd benchmark behavior "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-26 10:40 +0100
      Re: Odd benchmark behavior gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 03:37 -0700
      Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-26 14:13 +0200
    Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-26 11:55 +0200
      Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-27 09:17 +0200
        Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-27 09:20 +0200
          Re: Odd benchmark behavior "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-03-27 13:39 -0400
          Re: Odd benchmark behavior pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-03-27 21:49 -0500
            Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-04-05 12:18 +0200
              Re: Odd benchmark behavior pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-04-05 06:48 -0400
                Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-04-05 14:12 +0200
                Re: Odd benchmark behavior pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-04-05 09:03 -0400
                Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-04-05 16:18 +0200
                Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-04-07 13:26 +0200
                Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-04-06 09:31 +0200
        Re: Odd benchmark behavior "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-03-27 19:01 +0200
  Re: Odd benchmark behavior "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-26 10:36 +0100
    Re: Odd benchmark behavior Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2012-03-26 10:02 +0000
  Re: Odd benchmark behavior Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:58 +1300
  Re: Odd benchmark behavior "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-26 15:16 +0100
    Re: Odd benchmark behavior Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2012-03-27 06:20 +0000
      Re: Odd benchmark behavior "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-27 10:13 +0100
        Re: Odd benchmark behavior Nils M Holm <news2009@t3x.org> - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0000

csiph-web