This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Draft "Unsafe fp optimizations" project description.
- To: <dewar at gnat dot com>, <aj at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: Draft "Unsafe fp optimizations" project description.
- From: "Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 08:48:37 -0700
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- References: <20010805125728.96CC4F2B79@nile.gnat.com>
----- Original Message -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Draft "Unsafe fp optimizations" project
> >>Do you have any pointers to the literature for these
> Sorry, no, I would start by going to a good computer science
> is one time when online searching is unlikely to be very
> much of this material is quite old.
> One source of useful input is the original discussions
> adoption of IEEE, and there are definitely a number of
> here (at least some of these appear as references in Sam's
> particular there is extensive discussion of the
> which is relevant, given that archiectures like Alpha and
> backed off from the denormal orthodoxy recently.
I don't think the abrupt underflow settings which Itanium and
P4 architectures depend on for good performance qualify as
"denormal orthodoxy." Do the literature treat the combination
of abrupt underflow with extended exponent range?