On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 11:39:21PM +0200, Sidney Cadot wrote: > Compared to the IEEE formats, the sign bit is in a different place - > but there is much to be said for this scheme (the exponent byte now > being in a separate byte). The 39-bit mantissa guarantees 11 decimal > digits which would be compliant to ISO C requirements. I am not sure > whether TP used an implicit '1' in its mantissa, and how (if at all) it > handled non-normalized numbers. Since enough mantissa bits are available, I wouldn't use an implicit '1'. An implicit '1' makes handling of denormalized values more complex, since they have to be explicitly distinguished from normalized ones. > On a related note: do you have strong feelings about whether or not to > fully support IEEE-754 notions such as Not-A-Number, Infinity, rounding > modes? The most important goal would be to support the ISO C standard. I do not care much about supporting additional standards as long as there are no clear benefits when doing so. I assume that no 6502 machine be used for number crunching. However, having the precision specified in the C standard is a worthwile goal, since otherwise existing C programs may not run. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Tue Sep 28 09:11:02 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2004-09-28 09:11:11 CEST