Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Double Width Integer Multiplication and Division Summary: Some comments Message-ID: <1370@l.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 30 Jun 89 12:01:48 GMT References: <1035@aber-cs.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department Lines: 31 In article <1035@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > In article <1989Jun26.195044.4197@cs.rochester.edu> crowl@cs.rochester.edu > (Lawrence Crowl) writes: > > [1] You are not supposed to write assembler programs on a RISC > machine. The compilers have sophisticated algorithms to generate > "optimal" multiplication/division out of simpler instructions. I find this attitude arrogant. Neither you nor anyone else knows what complicated operations I want to do. Why should you try to make it difficult for me to use the power of the computer? > [2] Fixed point and the "muldiv()" idea to me look very much in the > RISC philosphy of minimalism. Fixed point, and multiple precision > integer arithmetic, are in many many cases preferable to floating > point and its complexities. Too bad that mathematicians are lulled > in a false sense of familiarity by floating point's "scientific > notation" and apparent support for real numbers. Do any mathematicians take this attitude? Maybe if their only knowledge of computers comes from HLLs and they swallow the hype. Outside of the field of numerical analysis, the "scientific notation" is rarely used in mathematics. Mathematicians who know that floating point numbers are, in reality, only approximations to real numbers will not be so confused. And good numerical analysts do not make this confusion. In fact, mathematicians complain that they are only offered limited precision floating point. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)