Dumping long double
hmurray at megapathdsl.net
Sun Nov 5 03:07:18 UTC 2017
>> We ran for years without long doubles. There were no destabilizing
> 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.
More information about the devel