This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: denormals/subnormals are heading for extinction


<<I would like to add that even if denormals are usually encounted
infrequently enough that any ineffeciencies with them are minor, there is
still a big cost. Implementation complexity. Having to add and waste the
transistors to deal with them in the first place.
>>

Well modern chips have millions of transistors to waste these days, so
that is a weak argument at this stage.

<<If the gains and costs of denormals are neglegible, leave them out.
They're a headache you don't want to design for.
>>

But the gains are by no means negligible. Remember that this subject has
been duked out with substantial opposition from the hardware folks, and
the IEEE standard (remember IEEE is a group with substantial hardware
input) decided that denormals are worthwhile for good reasons. The fact
that Scott believes otherwise, without good documentation, is not very
convincing.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]