Re: Arithmetic accuracy, was Compiler bugs

Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
16 Jan 2002 23:37:58 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
re: Compiler bugs chase@world.std.com (David Chase) (2002-01-03)
Re: Compiler bugs christian.bau@cbau.freeserve.co.uk (Christian Bau) (2002-01-05)
Re: Compiler bugs chase@world.std.com (David Chase) (2002-01-14)
Re: Arithmetic accuracy, was Compiler bugs joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-01-16)
Re: Arithmetic accuracy, was Compiler bugs nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2002-01-18)
Re: Arithmetic accuracy, was Compiler bugs jgd@cix.co.uk (2002-01-24)
Re: Arithmetic accuracy, was Compiler bugs nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2002-01-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 Jan 2002 23:37:58 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 02-01-015 02-01-029 02-01-054
Keywords: errors, arithmetic
Posted-Date: 16 Jan 2002 23:37:58 EST

David Chase wrote:


> I'm a little curious about one thing -- does anyone, besides a
> specifications- and-exact-correctness weenie like myself, actually
> care about this level of detail in machine floating point?


I can identify several groups of people who would be fussy about such
things:


Numeric algorithm implementors (because some algorithms depend
crucially on such precision, or - even more relevant - that the
round-off behaviour is predictable because the algorithm cancels them
out).


Anybody who uses this type of numeric library (typically scientific
computations and simulation).


People who are doing calculations for stuff that's safety-critical
(bridge construction, building construction) - not because any serious
problems are expected, but because these people cannot easily evaluate
whether the deficit is serious or not. (Plus there are enough reliable
applications around, so why switch to one with known deficits?)


Regards,
Joachim

Post a followup to this message

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