Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #511665
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? |
| Date | 2015-08-06 21:51 +0000 |
| Organization | NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.08.06.21.48.05@localhost.localdomain> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <b7826428-7fa3-495b-b9a0-ccecb131160b@googlegroups.com> <pan.2015.08.05.14.22.47@localhost.localdomain> <5affd440-f5ed-4ddf-a68a-16d1a66a90e1@googlegroups.com> <pan.2015.08.06.19.03.54@localhost.localdomain> <a011cf25-7f9e-46b2-bcd4-08901316e501@googlegroups.com> |
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:11:40 -0700, Quadibloc wrote: > > If calculating with such numbers "takes a lot of time", then such an option, to > decrease exponent range, is reasonable > Reducing exponent range will only create a larger and larger unusable interval around zero, and this would be counterproductive to many applications. > > It doesn't reduce the precision or accuracy of calculations that don't involve > very small numbers. > No. That's why "flush to zero" in entirely optional. > > However, for such calculations _to_ take a lot of time means that IEEE 754 was > not implemented correctly on the processor > IEEE 754 only specifies what to accomplish and not so much how to accomplish it. The fact that denormal numbers take longer to process is a natural consequence of hardware registers, which are designed for the normalized format. Thus a lot of pre-processing for each denormal number is required. Off the top of my head, arithmetic on normalized FP takes about 4-5 machine cycles whereas denormals require about 20-50 machine cycles. In algorithms that involve much looping this can add up. Denormals are a way to avoid the large "gap" around zero and they are very good to have.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-04 20:41 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-05 05:14 +0000
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-05 04:38 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-05 14:22 +0000
nano-M-sets noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:14 -0700
Re: nano-M-sets Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-05 21:23 +0000
Re: nano-M-sets Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 08:16 +0200
Re: nano-M-sets Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 17:34 +0000
Re: nano-M-sets Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-06 11:23 -0700
Re: nano-M-sets Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 18:39 +0000
Re: nano-M-sets Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 21:07 +0200
Re: nano-M-sets Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 19:14 +0000
Re: nano-M-sets Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 07:41 +0200
Re: nano-M-sets Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-06 14:17 -0700
Re: nano-M-sets Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 21:36 +0000
Re: nano-M-sets Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 08:08 +0200
Re: nano-M-sets Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 21:05 +0200
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-06 11:18 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 19:03 +0000
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-06 14:11 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-06 21:51 +0000
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-06 15:18 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-07 01:11 +0000
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 10:25 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-07 11:41 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-07 16:21 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-05 04:47 -0700
Re: What Floating-Point Precisions Would Physicists Prefer? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 14:36 +0200
csiph-web