From: "M. Kotiaho" <kotiaho@m_a_i_l.com>
Subject: Re: Floating point accuracy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:23:33 -0600
Date: 2001-02-15T11:23:33-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A8C1095.2DBC82B2@m_a_i_l.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3a8c00a1$1@pull.gecm.com
Martin Dowie wrote:
> doh!
> It's my eyes that don't have the necessary significant digits!
>
> As Markku points out, the values for "ls" _are_ different - just
> not where I had expected! In fact they are exactly 1000ns different,
> as I should have expected (the last 3 digits are the same, and
> confusing me!)
>
> But, Markku, the 'Floor is doing exactly what I want it to do... :-)
>
Fair enough ... I figured I would try to explain why the values that
actually *are* the same, er, are the same. That was more fun than
just telling you to take another look at your data.
FWIW, I think that GNAT for PPC/VxWorks does support 64 bit
unsigned integers.
MK
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-15 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-15 11:27 Floating point accuracy Martin Dowie
2001-02-15 14:40 ` Ted Dennison
2001-02-15 15:19 ` Martin Dowie
2001-02-15 15:22 ` M. Kotiaho
2001-02-15 16:22 ` Martin Dowie
2001-02-15 17:23 ` M. Kotiaho [this message]
2001-02-15 17:47 ` Martin Dowie
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox