Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:22176 sci.math:11249
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!think!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,sci.math
Subject: Re: Floating Point Expectations
Message-ID: <1603:May2720:32:5190@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 27 May 90 20:32:51 GMT
References: <12977@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990May24.132423.3080@eddie.mit.edu> <995@s8.Morgan.COM> <13000@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Followup-To: sci.math
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 15

In article <13000@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> Rather than attempting to model exact behavior of floating-point systems,
> I recommend devising algorithms that are robust in the face of
> considerable cruft from the floating-point unit.

This doesn't remove from FPU makers the responsibility to make chips
satisfying reasonably simple rules. You really can get a lot better
performance out of numerical algorithms when, e.g., you're working under
Knuth's model of floating-point computation. ANSI floating-point is an
excellent start, and it's worth the effort for strict compliance.

Anyway, this discussion belongs in sci.math or alt.chips.poor-engrg.
Followups to the former.

---Dan