Hi Gregory,
2017-01-16 20:28 GMT+01:00 Gregory P. Smith :
> Is there a good reason not to detect single expression multiply adds and
> just emit a new FMA bytecode?
>
Yes ;-) See below.
> Is our goal for floats to strictly match the result of the same operations
> coded in unoptimized C using d
> Generally speaking, there are two reasons why people may *not* want an
> FMA operation.
> 1. They need their results to be reproducible across
> compilers/platforms. (the most common reason)
>
The reproducibility of floating point calculation is very hard to reach
a good survey of the problem i
Hi Xavier,
In this bright age of IEEE-754 compatible CPUs,
it is certainly possible to achieve reproducible FP.
I worked for a company whose software produced bit-identical
results on various CPUs (x86, Sparc, Itanium) and OSes (Linux, Solaris,
Windows).
The trick is to closely RTFM for your CPU
Makes sense, thanks! math.fma() it is. :)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 7:48 AM Stephan Houben wrote:
> Hi Xavier,
>
> In this bright age of IEEE-754 compatible CPUs,
> it is certainly possible to achieve reproducible FP.
> I worked for a company whose software produced bit-identical
> results on vario
I never said it was impossible, just very hard.
Le 17/01/2017 à 16:48, Stephan Houben a écrit :
> Hi Xavier,
>
> In this bright age of IEEE-754 compatible CPUs,
> it is certainly possible to achieve reproducible FP.
> I worked for a company whose software produced bit-identical
> results on vario
Trying to get back to speed with PEP-499...
On 06Aug2015 13:26, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 6 August 2015 at 10:07, Cameron Simpson wrote:
I suspect "How Reloading Will Work" would need to track both module.__name__
and module.__spec__.name to reattach the module to both entires in
sys.modules.
