Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: FPU for PostScript Summary: Please submit evidence Message-ID: <1990Jan9.044252.18617@ico.isc.com> Date: 9 Jan 90 04:42:52 GMT References: <1666@intercon.com> <17582@rpp386.cactus.org> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 21 woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: > baffico@adobe.COM (Tom Baffico) writes: > >...As to the benefit of having a FPU, for most controllers the performance > > increase is actually quite small. > > AS to the benifits of a FPU, I am certain that the speedup would matter. I tend to agree with Tom, and while I haven't investigated it, I assume that Adobe has. Intuitively, it seems reasonable; I'd think the down'n' dirty work of the font rendering would be mostly fixed point. Probably a lot of it is not numerical work at all. Still, as I suggest, I ASSume that Adobe knows what they're doing. Woody - please submit some evidence that an FPU would make some useful speedup in a PostScript controller. I don't mean your conjecture; I mean some real evidence, or solid reasoning. Since, once again, you're trying to tell Adobe that they don't know their business, the burden of proof is on you. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."