Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: complex*32? Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 22:19:15 GMT References: <14238@lambda.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 29 In-reply-to: jlg@lambda.UUCP's message of 13 Feb 90 19:11:57 GMT In article <14238@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: That's rather a broad claim. Seems to me that the only people qualified to determine whether quad precision is needed are the folks who Agreed. The orignal poster only provided dynamic range requirement information, so I thought the claim was valid. It is quite possible that a given application can require, say, 100 decimal digits but a narrow exponential range. Had that been the question, I would have suggested a different answer ;> need it - the users. On the Cray _single_ precision floats are 64-bits (8-bytes) long. So, complex*16 is the _single_ precision complex type on Cray hardware. Some extended precision beyond that is often needed. True. And on the old Cyber machines words were 60-bits, so *Nbytes isn't the most helpful notation. Sorry for any confusion implied or caused. -- Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* kbierman%eng@sun.com I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO" "There is NO defense against the attack of the KILLER MICROS!" Eugene Brooks