Hi John, >> I have a problem with valgrind since I did convert >> my program to use long double instead double on >> critical points. Here is an example code: [snipped]
I also have this problem with some programs: running under valgrind eventually causes different program behaviour due to extra rounding. > If 53 bits of fractional precision are not enough, then the question > becomes, "Why are 64 bits enough? Why aren't 2*53 bits, or 53+64 bits, > or 2*64 bits, or more, required?" Perhaps because careful analysis has determined that 53 bits is not enough, but some greater number of bits is? > If you must have both such high precision and valgrind, then convert > to software double precision. Represent each quantity by the sum of > two 'double's, such that the difference in exponents is near 53. > [Have fun with the many corner cases: exponent underflow, ...] One of the great advantages of valgrind is that it doesn't require modifying source code. Your rather dismissive answer of "rewrite your software" is not very helpful. It's not always feasible to rewrite software. Ciao, Duncan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
