Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!steven
From: steven@cwi.nl (Steven Pemberton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: More ST Floating Point Performance - (nf)
Message-ID: <7434@boring.cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 25-Jun-87 09:51:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.7434
Posted: Thu Jun 25 09:51:59 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 06:53:31 EDT
References: <1959@trwrb.UUCP> <19400004@qtecmuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: steven@boring.UUCP (Steven Pemberton)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 17

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 nonsense if compared with 'correct' C-Compilers using 64 bit
> double precision.

You have misunderstood. One page earlier it says "[float] and [double] may
be  synonymous in some implementations.": when they say that floating point
is carried out in double precision, they mean 'in the accuracy used for
double precision'.

Actually, I know of at least one implementation that evaluates expressions
in greater than double precision. Obviously not a correct C compiler :-).

Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@cwi.nl (steven@mcvax.uucp old style).