long double in gcc implementations

H

Herbert Rosenau

Where do I insult someone with that remark?
I advise you not to use a compiler system that
you tell again and again that is bad.

Be sure that I will never and in no circumstance will ever try to use
a product from the person whes names is given in the first line of
this artikle. Be sure that I will ever and in any circumstasnce
recommend not to use your compiler.
An advise that with good manners discussions are less emotional
and more to the point. Flame fests are so boring.

You do not like lcc-win32?

You are not the only one. Please keep cool and expose your views.

Explain why providing features like 100 digits precision is
bad for the user.

Only 3 single points in a sequence without scoring:
1. it is not standard conform
2. windows XP is not the only OS.
3. it is in a compier the developer is constantly spamming for
and more I left open for now.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
 
S

Skarmander

Herbert said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[lots of repetitions of the phrase "unutterably stupid man" addressed to
Jacob Navia]

Please try making your points without calling people names. It's childish
and distracting. I don't frequent comp.lang.c for the arguments, but when
there *are* arguments I'd at least expect the participants to remain civil.

Oh, a person who is misusing this group to spam for his properitary
product where he has already proven multiple times that his
understunding of the topic of this group is to say it courteous highly
incomplete is needed from time to time.
It's not entirely clear what you mean, but if you're implying that he needs
a good tongue-lashing every now and then to uphold the community mores, I
disagree.
It seems you are relative new to this group, so you does not know the
history of mr. Navia you should ask mr. google for him and what it has
to say about the person you says nobody should call his name.
I'm not defending mr. Navia in the least, and frankly I couldn't care if he
ate babies.

Well, as long as he kept any mention of devouring infants out of this group.
No, it is only pure fact as proven by himself.
Far be it from me to argue with fact. Or truthiness, for that matter.

What I see as a fact is that nobody has ever been called stupid (repeatedly)
to respond that they now see the error of their ways, or for others to
mention that they have gained a new understanding of the situation.

Of course, making progress wasn't really the point of the discourse, and I
shouldn't have pretended otherwise.
No, there is really no insult but there are enough comments about the
person you says nobody should call his name. Mr. google will help you
to get informed.
You seem to imply that my opinion on mr. Navia, whatever it is or could be,
would have anything to do with my dislike of insults as a style of rhetoric.
It does not.

And if you are convinced no insults were involved, I can only say that your
conception of an insult is apparently different from mine. No sense arguing
from that angle.

All this just reinforces my existing belief that commenting on a flame is
pointless; I should have resisted the temptation, which I find stirring in
me from time to time. I promise to show more restraint in the future.

S.
 
J

jacob navia

Skarmander a écrit :
All this just reinforces my existing belief that commenting on a flame
is pointless; I should have resisted the temptation, which I find
stirring in me from time to time. I promise to show more restraint in
the future.

Agreed. That is a good sentence to keep.

Now, I will eat a few more babies for lunch!

jacob
 
E

ena8t8si

Eric said:
Fine. Use it good health. However, keep in mind that
this compiler (if we are to believe Jacob's description) is
not a C compiler, at least, not a C compiler in its usual
mode of operation.

Aren't most C compilers not C compilers in their usual
mode of operation? For gcc, for example, I'm pretty
sure that what it accepts isn't strictly standard C
unless a switch or two is added.
 
A

av

I may need to rescind my contrition here.

I am interested in something called the error function. This following
bit of code uses the built-in versions of lcc-win32 to compute this:

i have "erf" too; i wrote it seeing my university book "analisi 1" the
integral:
oo
x 2 ---- k 2k + 1
/ -t \ (-1) x
| e dt = / --------------
/ ---- k k! (2k + 1)
0 0

in some other place i found
it seems x 2
2 / -t
erf(x)= -------- * | e dt
------ /
\/ Pi 0

erfc(x)= 1 - erf(x)

then an inplementation (don't know if is right it is all in "test"
here)

#include "num32.h"

int pause(void)
{int c;
P("\nPress enter to couninue...");
c=getchar_m(); R c;
}

int main(void)
{int i;
fnum x;
///////////
cout << "inserisci la precisione [\"0\" finisce]> ";
if(get_int(cin, &i, 0, 9000)==0) R 0;
set_precision10(i);
cout << "inserisci un numero > "; cin >> x;
cout << "erfc(" << x << ")==" << erfc(x) << "\n";
cout << "erf (" << x << ")==" << erf (x) << "\n";
pause(); R 0;
}
--------------------------------------------------
inserisci la precisione ["0" finisce]> assssffe err
Errore o importo fuori range: Riprova > -999999999999999999
Errore o importo fuori range: Riprova > -1
Errore o importo fuori range
DD:cont1=0 buffh_len1=4 buffh1=0x43285C
MEMORIA DINAMICA LIBERATA Tot=0.0080 Mb
inserisci la precisione ["0" finisce]> sii isisi uaia
Errore o importo fuori range: Riprova > 9999999999999999999999
Errore o importo fuori range: Riprova > 200
base_10=200 precision=21
inserisci un numero > 1.73
erfc(1.73)==0.014421500171819502568811928600244606213396306816246546707796466909
14859183973970631507594187479276740019642092608453769205806480452297025856609028
239617967907791293482074384255797294560459657354277808
erf(1.73)==0.985578499828180497431188071399755393786603693183753453292203533090
85140816026029368492405812520723259980357907391546230794193519547702974143390971
760382032092208706517925615744202705439540342645722192

Press enter to couninue...
DD:cont1=0 buffh_len1=26 buffh1=0x43263C
MEMORIA DINAMICA LIBERATA Tot=0.0080 Mb
inserisci la precisione ["0" finisce]> 20
base_10=20 precision=3
inserisci un numero > aaaa
erfc(0)==1
erf (0)==0

Press enter to couninue...
DD:cont1=0 buffh_len1=8 buffh1=0x43263C
MEMORIA DINAMICA LIBERATA Tot=0.0080 Mb

inserisci la precisione ["0" finisce]> 700
base_10=700 precision=73
inserisci un numero > 1.73
erfc(1.73)==0.014421500171819502568811928600244606213396306816246546707796466909
14859183973970631507594187479276740019642092608453769205806480452297025856609028
23961796790779129348207438425579729456045965735427780829276055456766177255810490
09489450899305874485241735734329902771642126578242826908491881699290363909702738
37485258369381146789843679628660206881332006907935825951089724201992511894706841
04923803455775165217127667997338419520875591912910520278572333408716697499401634
32239970196933678661287227224591967016761163282166438400430159370017368174950344
99480951075785283901779522028949334324485846719525271369786793031600737891870279
84437838261036547158831015418153908386052592280076111430463372003832425102
erf(1.73)==0.985578499828180497431188071399755393786603693183753453292203533090
85140816026029368492405812520723259980357907391546230794193519547702974143390971
76038203209220870651792561574420270543954034264572219170723944543233822744189509
90510549100694125514758264265670097228357873421757173091508118300709636090297261
62514741630618853210156320371339793118667993092064174048910275798007488105293158
95076196544224834782872332002661580479124408087089479721427666591283302500598365
67760029803066321338712772775408032983238836717833561599569840629982631825049655
00519048924214716098220477971050665675514153280474728630213206968399262108129720
15562161738963452841168984581846091613947407719923888569536627996167574897

Press enter to couninue...
DD:cont1=0 buffh_len1=89 buffh1=0x4327BC
MEMORIA DINAMICA LIBERATA Tot=0.0240 Mb
 
L

lcw1964

You are obviously using an arbitrary precsion library to get such
excellent results. I can confirm that your output agrees fully with
Maple, and I gather Mathematica too--go to functions.wolfram.com, which
is an excellent interactive website driven by the Mathematica
computational engine.

Could you email me with more information about what you are using? I
would ask you to post here, but since this NG is interested in
standardization and portability it may not be the best place to get
into a detailed discussion about non-standard libraries and compiler
extensions.

Les
 
L

lcw1964

Tom said:
Have you thought of trying out Cygwin? It gives you a nice UNIX
emulation layer on-top of the windows runtime (e.g. applications you
write in Cygwin stand half a chance of working on BSD, Linux and UNIX).

I don't know for a fact, but maybe the math libs linked in with Cygwin
can help you out.

I have done a little homework and have decided to give Cygwin a try.

Since I have no idea what packages I need, I am in the process of
downloading the whole monstrously huge thing--yes, I choose the
"install all" option in the setup chooser! I have a good DSL connection
but it looks like I could very well be here until next week ;)

At least I have a good size hard drive, and it looks like Cygwin puts
everything in one place and doesn't splash the file system and registry
with tons of stuff that you can never safely get rid of later. Because
of this, I have no misgivings about doing a full download since it will
be no problem get Cygwin fully off my system later should I wish to.

I will let you know how my gcc adventures go once I get this downloaded
and set up.... I am up to 30% of download completion as I send this,
and it has only been 45min so far ;)

Les
 
A

av

You are obviously using an arbitrary precsion library to get such
excellent results. I can confirm that your output agrees fully with
Maple, and I gather Mathematica too--go to functions.wolfram.com, which
is an excellent interactive website driven by the Mathematica
computational engine.

Could you email me with more information about what you are using? I

i'm using my little "home-made" math library
it is full of bug for example:

inserisci la precisione ["0" finisce]> 20
base_10=20 precision=3
inserisci un numero > aaaa
erfc(0)==1
erf (0)==0

is wrong because "cin >> x;" if fail it has to assign
"FAIL" in the stream flag (never assign a value in "x") and
possibly sane the stream like this call never would be
and this were not. so i have to rewrite >>(istream&, fnum&).
But it seems ">>" is ok now
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,717
Messages
2,569,382
Members
44,704
Latest member
FawnBernay

Latest Threads

Top