Oh I see the ticket. Are you focusing on adding hex support to Double# and Float# ? That would be splendid. We currently don have a decent way of writing nan, and the infinities. That would be splendid.
On Monday, January 13, 2014, Carter Schonwald wrote: > This is actually a bit more subtle than you'd think. Are those constants > precise and exact? (There's certainly floating point code that exploits > the cancellations in the floating point model) There's many floating point > computations that can't be done with exact rational operations. There's > also certain aspects that are target dependent like operations having 80bit > vs 64bit precision. (Ie using the old intel fp registers vs sse2 and newer) > > What's the ticket you're working on? > > > Please be very cautious with floating point, any changes to the meaning > that aren't communicated by the programs author could leave a haskeller > numerical analyst scratching their head. For example, when doing these > floating point computations, what rounding modes will you use? > > On Monday, January 13, 2014, Kyle Van Berendonck wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm cutting my teeth on some constant folding for floats in the cmm. >> >> I have a question regarding the ticket I'm tackling: >> >> Should floats be folded with infinite precision (and later truncated to >> the platform float size) -- most useful/accurate, or folded with the >> platform precision, i.e. double, losing accuracy but keeping consistent >> behaviour with -O0 -- most "correct"? >> >> I would prefer the first case because it's *much* easier to implement >> than the second, and it'll probably rot less. >> >> Regards. >> >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
