In
<of505c9b75.fb50f3fa-on8525771c.005963db-8525771c.005a9...@tsys.com>,
on 05/07/2010
at 12:28 PM, Kirk Talman <rkueb...@tsys.com> said:
>I agree w/Shmuel. This is a display issue.
?
I wrote that it is a numeric conversion issue, *not* a display issue.
>The problems were detected because the "old" machine was CDC 1604 which
>had the same precision as a 7094.
The 7094 was 36 bits. The 1604 was 48 bits. The exponent may have been
larger on the 1604, but not large enough for the mantissa to be the
same as on the 7094.
>large CDC machine with I think 60/120 bit "words".
That would have been the 6600, at 60 bits. It was 4 bits shorter than
the IBM 7030.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
