Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg
From: jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: More ST Floating Point Performance - (nf)
Message-ID: <651@elmgate.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jun-87 12:34:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: elmgate.651
Posted: Thu Jun 25 12:34:18 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 02:05:56 EDT
References: <1959@trwrb.UUCP> <19400004@qtecmuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jdg@aurora.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY
Lines: 33

In article <19400004@qtecmuc.UUCP> ger@qtecmuc.UUCP writes:
>
>
>According to Kernighan&Ritchie (Appendix A, 6.2 on page 184 in my copy)
>'all floating point arithmetic in C is carried out in double
>precision'.  Therefore, if manx on the AMIGA really uses one longword
>for floating point evaluations it simply isn't real C and benchmarks
>with this compiler are pure nonsens if compared with 'correct'
>C-Compilers using 64bit double precision.
>
>Gerhard Pehland
>UUCP:  ...!seismo!unido!qtecmuc!ger

I'm not too sure (have to go home and check) but I believe Megamax also uses
single precision *if* you don't link with double.l.  Now Manx 3.4a on the
amiga gives you 4 different floating point choices.  Manx single, Amiga built
in single (shared lib I think), Manx IEEE double, and Amiga IEEE (again a
built in shrared lib). PLUS 68881 support.  

Change,  is there a new release of MegaMax (large memory model, etc)?
Would some MWC 2.0 owners mail me their thoughts on the robust(ness?) of this
compiler? Latly I've had tons of problems porting code (just C standard stuff)
between machines (Amiga and ST) because MegaMax chokes badly on some complex
expressions (and not so complex) that Manx 3.4 swallows just fine.
I really need a robust compiler so as to concentrate on coding and not on
compiler problems.  Does MWC 2.0 fit that bill?


-- 
Jeff Gortatowsky       {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg
Eastman Kodak Company  
These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a
simple and complete disclaimer?