|Q: division vs multiplication email@example.com (1995-03-24)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-02)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com (1995-04-02)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication email@example.com (1995-04-02)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-03)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication davidm@Rational.COM (1995-04-03)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication email@example.com (1995-04-04)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com (1995-04-06)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication firstname.lastname@example.org (Mike Meissner) (1995-04-16)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication email@example.com (1995-04-16)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-18)|
|Re: Q: division vs multiplication email@example.com (1995-04-11)|
|[7 later articles]|
|From:||davidm@Rational.COM (David Moore)|
|Organization:||Rational Software Corporation|
|Date:||Mon, 3 Apr 1995 21:17:40 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Mr Tomas Hulek) writes:
>My question is: does this also apply to division by constants that are powers
>of 2? For real-world compilers (C,C++ let's say) and machines, is there any
>benefit in using
>r = 0.5*(a+b);
>r = (a+b)/2.0;
Just subtract 1 from the exponent, right?
Actually, I have done just that at times (working in assembler) but
there are several gotchas.
i) Does not work with denormalised numbers, or numbers that would
become denormalised if you did it the usual way. As a result, this is
only really useful after range reduction has guaranteed that you are
far enough away from zero.
Of course, you could test for this, but then your multiply would
probably have finished faster - and even if it would not, you have
burned a lot more issue slots than required by the one instruction
for the multiply, and at times issue slots are your limiting resource.
ii) Requires a 1 bit up near the left end of a word, which can be
hard to do. It might take 2 cycles to get that bit in place, in which
time you could start two floating point multiplies (of course, it
would take two cycles to load 0.5 too - but if you have 0.5 to hand,
it is not a win)
iii) (The killer on most modern Risc machines). There is no simple
path from the floating point registers to the integer registers. You
probably have to store the value to memory (possibly generating a
cache miss!) and reload it. Then you have to store and reload on the
way back to the floater. By now, your multiply would be done.
So, in general it is better to use the 0.5*(a+b) form. One should be
aware that 0.5*(a+b) and (a+b)/2.0 may not produce the same value. On
some compilers, 0.5 will get represented as 0.49999999999 (add 9's to
taste), although this should undoubtably be considered a bug.
Optimizers have to be cautious about replacing floating divides by
multiplies, so I expect many C compilers will not convert the divide
to a multiply for you.
[ASIDE]. A year or two ago, there were a couple of papers that
appeared together somewhere, and which I know I have, but which I
have been unable to locate. One was entitled something like "How to
write floating point numbers" and the other "How to read floating
Can anyone give me the reference?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.