Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!firth From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Killer Micro II Message-ID: <8442@fy.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 31 Aug 90 12:19:16 GMT References: <527@llnl.LLNL.GOV> <603@array.UUCP> <2482@l.cc.purdue.edu> <2868@inews.intel.com> Reply-To: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 14 In article aglew@dwarfs.crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) writes: >It sounds like Kahan is pushing for the 128 bit quad precision that >was dropped from the IEEE FP standard. Power to him! With respect, I disagree. In my opinion, there are already far to many engineers who use rotten numerical algorithms and trust to double precision and dumb luck; going to quadruple precision will merely encourage more of the same. What I think we need is hardware interval arithmetic. When the printout shows them beyond dispute that the choice is between 50 bits of noise and 100 bits of noise, perhaps they'll spend more time on better algorithms and less time pushing for wrong answers faster.