Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!ima!mirror!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: fortran to C converter
Message-ID: <1317@frog.UUCP>
Date: 26 Apr 89 00:04:00 GMT
References: <10176@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> <12247@lanl.gov> <8050@boring.cwi.nl>
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us
Lines: 20

In article <8050@boring.cwi.nl>, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
> In article <1989Apr24.172747.993@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>  > In article <12247@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>  > >On the Cray, doubles have 28 digits of precision, but it takes 50 (that's
>  > >right - FIFTY) time as long to compute with doubles as with singles.
>  > Given the pervasive nature of double in C code, sounds like Cray made a bad
>  > decision (or an interim one).
> Given that Cray's choice predates C, this sounds a bit strange.  Considering
> K&R and Ansi C, I would say that K&R made a bad decision (and clearly an
> interim one).

Cray made a bad choice of assigning the longer format to the "double" keyword.
Having "float" and "double" be identical is a perfectly valid C implementation
(as Henry said).  K&R made a mathematician's choice, not the choice of
FORTRAN jocks who have gotten used to the vagaries of hardware and who have
made a virtue of hardship :-).

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu