From: Groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2003-03-07 17:51:32
On Friday 07 March 2003 17:10, Piotr Fusik wrote: > I don't think we need fast FP routines. Small are better. agreed. floats will be way slower than longs currently are...and longs are already unuseable for anything remotely fast :) so small is a much better idea here. > char->float conversion is smaller and faster than long->float, but this > way we will get many routines: signed char -> float, unsigned char -> > float, int -> float, unsigned -> float, long -> float and unsigned long -> > float (and as many float -> ... routines). since there exist routines for converting about anything into a long...maybe its an idea to convert to long first, and have a long->fp conversion only. > The comparision is a bit tricky - there are signed 0s, infinites and NaNs. > Optimizing single comparision operator routines isn't probably the good > way - there should be some common code for comparision. Note that some > optimizations are not legal for IEEE floats (e.g. !(a>=b) is not > neccessarily (a<b)). mmmh could you explain the latter? just curious :O) gpz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-03-07 17:45:38 CET