Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!amdcad!jimb
From: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Harmonic Series Benchmark
Message-ID: <1461@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 19:15:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.1461
Posted: Wed May 29 19:15:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 09:06:25 EDT
References: <1353@amd.UUCP> <385@gumby.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 28

In article <385@gumby.UUCP> g-inners@gumby.UUCP writes:
>I suspect the difference (9.787613 vs 9.787606) is due to differences
>in the number of bits of precision.  The VAX has one bit more precision
>...
 It is.  I used doubles, the poster used floats. 9.787606 is a more
accurate answer.
>...
>The the VAX result is probably better than the 3081 or Mac.

No, the answer for the Vax, the IBM 3081, and Consulair C are the same
given the same conditions:
	Floats(1->10000) = 9.787613
	Floats(10000->1) = 9.787604   (Less roundoff error)
	Doubles		 = 9.787606   (Direction doesn't matter)

A friend of mine ran my source code on Megamax C, got same answers, it 
took 64 seconds for floats, and 39 seconds for doubles.

I don't know why the original poster of the problem stated he got the wrong
answer from Megamax, but his times were comparable for Floats.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200

"... Don't sue me, I'm just the piano player!...."