steveh@cheetah.inmos.co.uk (Steven Huggins) (04/08/91)
I notice that both Sun and VAX do not give accuracy figures in the manuals for their mathematics intrinsics in FORTRAN. I believe that some manufacturers do give such figures. What I am interested in is, 1) what sort of user uses such figures? 2) what is the best form of such figures? 3) why do most people not seem to care that the mathematics intrinsics are not wholly accurate? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven R Huggins, Software Development Group, INMOS Ltd., 1000 Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, United Kingdom. BS12 4SQ Tel: 0454 616616 INTERNET: steveh@inmos.com JANET and UK source: steveh@uk.co.inmos Other possibility: steveh@inmos.co.uk
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/12/91)
In article <15286@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, steveh@cheetah.inmos.co.uk (Steven Huggins) writes: > I notice that both Sun and VAX do not give accuracy figures in the > manuals for their mathematics intrinsics in FORTRAN. It's been a while since I had my hands on a Sun "Floating Point Programmers' Guide", but it was my impression that they _did_ report the quality of their intrinsics. That manual is certainly where I learned about the ELEFUNT test suite. With ELEFUNT, you don't need to trust the vendor. (Sun were right to be confident.) -- It is indeed manifest that dead men are formed from living ones; but it does not follow from that, that living men are formed from dead ones. -- Tertullian, on reincarnation.