This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: denormals/subnormals are heading for extinction
- To: <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Subject: Re: denormals/subnormals are heading for extinction
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby at qwes dot math dot cmu dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: <trt at cs dot duke dot edu>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> >>I am unqualified to judge one way or another. Nor did I.
> That sounds like you do not understand the important advantages of denormals.
> Again for a simple explanation, see chapter 5 of my book.
Sure, I'm interested in hearing why..
Title and/or Author of this book? (And/or got a URL for chapter 5?)
> No one ever said there is no cost to the implementation (having written
> several full IEEE software implementations, I know very well what the cost
> is), where did you get that idea?
Because you had said:
``Again, I am thinking about the entire overall performance of a complete
application (nothing else is relevant).''
Which indicated that you were ignoring any costs of implementaiton