mccalpin@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (John McCalpin) (01/06/89)
In article <20295@ames.arc.nasa.gov> (Hugh LaMaster) writes: >In article <325@loligo.fsu.edu> (John D. McCalpin) writes: >>There is some hesitancy in the supercomputer community to switch to the >>IEEE format because the exponent range of 64-bit numbers is so much >>smaller than the range currently provided by Cray and CDC/ETA formats. >Most users that I know >of would welcome having the same format on their supercomputer as on >their graphics engine (often IEEE), and the IEEE format is considered >among the best available by numerical analysts. ("welcome" seems a little >weak in retrospect. Some people would kill for it. > Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster > NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov I certainly count myself in the group that longs dearly for binary data portability. I complain to my contacts at CDC at every available opportunity, and ask: "WHY has no supercomputer vender EVER supplied a front-end which uses the same floating-point format and instruction set as the back end?" The response is always some variation on: "Who is going to pay for it?" I suspect that one of the reasons that the Cyber 205 never caught on is that (because of the inability to move data) everyone expects their supercomputer to do EVERYTHING well -- including all the scalar stuff that could be done far more cost-effectively on a front-end. Cray has not (to my mind) solved the problem, they have just got a faster scalar machine.... I am still waiting for a real binary-compatible distributed system which includes a supercomputer - maybe DEC needs to come out with a vector-pipelined VAX supercomputer.... :-) -- ---------------------- John D. McCalpin ------------------------ Dept of Oceanography & Supercomputer Computations Research Institute mccalpin@masig1.ocean.fsu.edu mccalpin@nu.cs.fsu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------