On Tuesday 18 July 2006 22:18, Bradley Arsenault wrote: > On 7/18/06, Bradley Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why do you think that a compiler would intentionally leave bits > > unitialized in the mantissa when it could initialize them and add > > better determinism? > > > > All of my usages of float are casts, temporaries, un-accumulated > > values from integers. Theres no reason for the compiler to leave bits > > unitialized when its being provided the same deterministic value as > > input. > > > > Float insafety is caused mainly by accumulated-error and having a > > different exponent and mantissa representing the same value ( 50 * 0.1 > > or 5 * 1.0 ). > > > > If your willing to explain yourself, then good, but I see no reason > > for the compiler to leave unitialized bits inside a value thats being > > initialized. > > > > > Do _not_ _ever_ depend on doubles for bit perfect reproducibility. > > > > > > > I'll fix this as soon as I have time. Sorry everyone, my mistake. > > > > > > CU > > > > > > -- CFD > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > glob2-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel > > > > -- > > Start and finish, Bradley Arsenault > > Ooops, I didn't notice, I am using an accumulated value. But still, > its providded the same values(because their from casts), using the > same operations (which are deterministic in the computers sense), so > there shouldn't be problem with the same computer, same compiler.
It is _not_ the compiler, it is the hardware. read the IEEE 754 norm. CU -- CFD _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
