Re: rational to floating point?

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
18 Oct 2003 15:28:03 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
rational to floating point? thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-10-13)
Re: rational to floating point? mitr@volny.cz (Miloslav Trmac) (2003-10-13)
Re: rational to floating point? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-10-13)
Re: rational to floating point? haberg@matematik.su.se (2003-10-13)
Re: rational to floating point? thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-10-14)
Re: rational to floating point? fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) (2003-10-18)
Re: rational to floating point? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-10-18)
Re: rational to floating point? Peter-Lawrence.Montgomery@cwi.nl (2003-10-18)
Re: rational to floating point? thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-10-27)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Oct 2003 15:28:03 -0400
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 03-10-065 03-10-080
Keywords: arithmetic
Posted-Date: 18 Oct 2003 15:28:03 EDT

Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> writes:
|>
|> I haven't had time to give the above the full attention they deserve,
|> but I think I have a handle on how to produce the significand and
|> exponent of the floating point number (as arbitrary-precision integers
|> (conveniently in base 256 in my implementation)). What's missing is
|> the conversion to the actual float. The Clinger paper makes use of a
|> mysteriously unexplained "make-float" function, for which there seems
|> to be no portable manifestation. Things like radix conversion are no
|> sweat, but bit twiddling is not something I've had a lot of experience
|> with. Is it typical in these situations to produce the IEEE 754 float
|> bit pattern directly? If so, do I have to worry not only about whether
|> that's the standard on the chosen platform, but also about things like
|> endianness?
|>
|> [Yes, one typically twiddles the bits directly, and you have to be aware
|> of endianness. Fortunately, these days the only popular formats are
|> big- and little-endian IEEE and maybe legacy IBM hex. -John]


You have forgotten Intel 80-bit format :-)


And remember that there are several variants of IEEE - e.g. whether
denormals are supported. But they are all subsets, except for
extended precision.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.