Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie
Message-ID: <ps5Hypq4@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 15 May 91 04:03:25 GMT
References: <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> <1991May10.211958.25387@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
	<pq5Hex_@cs.psu.edu> <1991May14.133421.23410@maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 15
In-Reply-To: mike@maths.tcd.ie's message of 14 May 91 13: 34:21 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <1991May14.133421.23410@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes:

	   But no transcendentals, right? Also, I think that trig is now software.
   And aren't there errors (still?) in the initial 68040s?

The transcendentals are done in software.  Moto. claims that there is
still a speed up over the 68882, but I haven't tried doing anything
with them myself so I don't know.  I think the libraries on the NeXT
are really screwed so transcendental performance is not great.

I don't know anything about the "bugs" in the 68040, except that I did
read in comp.arch that they were in the FPU.

-Mike