maybe so, but having a semantics by default is huge, and honestly i'm not
super interested in optimizations that merely change one infinity for
another. What would the alternative semantics be? Whatever it is, how will
we communicate it to our users? GHC's generally been (by accidenta) IEEE
2014/1/14 Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com:
maybe so, but having a semantics by default is huge, and honestly i'm not
super interested in optimizations that merely change one infinity for
another. What would the alternative semantics be?
I'm not sure that I understood your reply: My
Sven, I'm one of those people who cares about numerical performance :-).
Kinda been my obsession :-). My near term stop gap is writing some very
high quality ffi bindings, but I'm very keen on Haskell giving fortran a
run for it's money.
Glad we agree the version that's easier to debug (IEEE, ie
On 01/14/2014 11:48 AM, Sven Panne wrote:
My point was: As much as I propose to keep these current semantics,
there might be users who care more about performance than
IEEE-754-conformance.
Adding a -ffast-math flag could be fine IMHO.
For those, relatively simple semantics could be:
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
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
Hi,
I'd like to work on the primitives first. They are relatively easy to
implement. Here's how I figure it;
The internal representation of the floats in the cmm is as a Rational
(ratio of Integers), so they have infinite precision. I can implement all
the constant folding by just writing my own
On 01/13/2014 05:21 PM, Kyle Van Berendonck wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to work on the primitives first. They are relatively easy to
implement. Here's how I figure it;
The internal representation of the floats in the cmm is as a Rational
(ratio of Integers), so they have infinite precision. I can
