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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #19081

Re: Odd benchmark behavior

Show all headers | View raw

"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4f716921$0$1383$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>
> "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???

Well, yes, 2 is an allowed value for that expression.  Floating point 
functions such are sqrt, sin and log are not required to be exact; only 
close; it is quite acceptable if sqrt(9.0) evaluates to 2.999999999999; when 
you convert that to unsigned, it does a round down, giving you 2.

The inexactness of floating point is something the programmer needs to be 
aware of whenever they deal with floating point.

-- 
poncho

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