Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!gn.ecn.purdue.edu!jess From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Think C vs MPW C?? Message-ID: <1991Mar26.233245.20508@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 26 Mar 91 23:32:45 GMT References: <91082.152427ACPS5788@Ryerson.Ca> <1991Mar26.224716.29004@world.std.com> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 19 In article <1991Mar26.224716.29004@world.std.com> siegel@world.std.com (Rich Siegel) writes: > THINK C has better floating-point code generation, which is mostly >due to the fact that in THINK C, 'double' is the SANE 'Extended' data type. >Since there's no internal conversion going on, floating-point calculations >and comparisons are much more efficient. MPW C's 'double' is the SANE >'double'. A long time ago, I did some timings, and discovered that using >80-bit reals was as much as four times faster as using 64-bit reals. > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Rich Siegel Internet: siegel@world.std.com >Software Engineer Applelink: SIEGEL >Symantec Languages Group Does it make any difference under MPW if the variables are declared as type extended rather than type double, or are both equally slow (ie. both translating to SANE's type double)? Jess Holle