On Saturday, 28 June 2014 at 09:07:17 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Saturday, 28 June 2014 at 06:16:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/27/2014 10:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/27/2014 4:10 AM, John Colvin wrote:
*The number of algorithms that are both numerically
stable/correct and benefit
significantly from > 64bit doubles is very small.
To be blunt, baloney. I ran into these problems ALL THE TIME
when doing
professional numerical work.
Sorry for being so abrupt. FP is important to me - it's not
just about performance, it's also about accuracy.
I still maintain that the need for the precision of 80bit reals
is a niche demand. Its a very important niche, but it doesn't
justify having its relatively extreme requirements be the
default. Someone writing a matrix inversion has only themselves
to blame if they don't know plenty of numerical analysis and
look very carefully at the specifications of all operations
they are using.
Paying the cost of moving to/from the fpu, missing out on
increasingly large SIMD units, these make everyone pay the
price.
inclusion of the 'real' type in D was a great idea, but
std.math should be overloaded for float/double/real so people
have the choice where they stand on the performance/precision
front.
Would thar make sense to have std.mast and std.fastmath, or
something along these lines ?
