From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,65b3f028266fd999
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:31:07 -0400
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <chapinp@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about ordinary fixed point types.
References: <4c685fac$0$2373$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <82aaomvn02.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4c692129$0$2385$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <wcc4oeubpiq.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wcc4oeubpiq.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4c69a02b$0$2369$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98789e57.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=a9_27OF9X[lZ_caXTC`bQlK6_LM2JZB_cI<BL;iY]nle:WUUlR<856oXea>STd^=bn_3DmoA44Ycj
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13430
Date: 2010-08-16T16:31:07-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2010-08-16 10:28, Robert A Duff wrote:

> I'd expect "*" and "/" to be faster for binary smalls,
> but I don't think it makes any difference for "+" and "-".
> Multiplying angles by angles doesn't make much sense...

Probably true. On the other hand I anticipate needing other fixed point
types before I'm done so I think it would serve me well to get used to
using binary smalls.

> You can test your test.  That is, write the loop using the
> advice elsewhere in this thread, and unchecked-convert
> each value to an integer of the same size, and see if
> you get the integer representations you are expecting.

I might try that for interest's sake. If I understand you properly, I'd
have to (re)run that test for each implementation that I use. Of course,
I'm not really using very many implementations (just two).

Peter