Dumping long double

[Hal Murray]

>> We ran for years without long doubles.  There were no destabilizing
>> problems.

> No, but changing the code *back* before 1.0 was a thing I didn't want to do.

I was surprised you put that change in that close to 1.0.  Taking it back 
should have been a simple revert.


> I rememenber now thinking that long double was a net gain, if imperfectly,
> because on systems with full long double support it would address the
> overflow issue, while leaving us no worse off than before elsewhere. 

How much hardware has support for long doubles?

What is the performance impact of no hardware support?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.