On 12/27/2006 01:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced that you're fixing things so much as doing your best
to destroy IEEE-compliant float arithmetic behavior.
I think what we should probably consider is removing CheckFloat4Val
and CheckFloat8Val altogether, and just letting the float arithm
On 12/27/2006 05:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
'double'. See this program and output:
This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
... and prob
Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In float4mul() and float4div(), the computation should be double precision.
Why? It's going to have to fit in a float4 eventually anyway.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
Roman Kononov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/27/2006 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Are you sure? As I remember, computation automatically upgrades to
>> 'double'. See this program and output:
> This is platform- and compiler- dependent:
... and probably irrelevant, too. We should stor
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what we should probably consider is removing CheckFloat4Val
>> and CheckFloat8Val altogether, and just letting the float arithmetic
>> have its head. Most modern hardware gets float arithmetic right per
>> spec, and we shouldn'
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have made some more progress on this patch.
I'm not convinced that you're fixing things so much as doing your best
to destroy IEEE-compliant float arithmetic behavior.
I think what we should probably consider is removing CheckFloat4Val
and CheckFloat8
