Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: FP: software vs. hardware (WAS: What should be in hardware but isn't)
Message-ID: <1080@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 17:12:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: vaxb.1080
Posted: Tue Sep 29 17:12:43 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 18:48:11 EDT
References: <581@l.cc.purdue.edu> <8646@utzoo.UUCP>, <705@gumby.UUCP> <8668@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 22
Summary: Vendor supplied?

In article <8668@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

> ... I wasn't saying "the 68881
> is more accurate than carefully-implemented double-precision software such
> as one would expect from e.g. MIPSco"; I was saying "the 68881 is more
> accurate than the sloppy first-cut software that one confidently expects
> XYZ Vaporboxes Inc. to ship as its `production' release".  The point is not
> that the 68881 has inherent advantages over software, but that it represents
> a *cheap* *prepackaged* high-quality solution.  In principle one could find
> the same thing in software, but commercial realities make this unlikely
> unless it comes from a university:  the 68881 can be cheaply and widely
> sold at a profit because *it cannot be pirated easily*.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't understand why the vendor of the main
processor chip doesn't write low-level software like FP libraries.
If Motorola wrote good transcendental functions for the 68020, or for
the 68881, if it hadn't had them in microcode, wouldn't that increase
sales of their product enough to justify their effort?

Anyone want to clue me in to reality here?

    Radford Neal