search for: binary32

Here is the link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/nq6cvH_VVV4 -- H.J.

...moderation somewhere: I would suggest that rather than using old terms such as "single", "double" and "128-bit extended" to describe floating-point formats, and rather than referring to "IEEE-754R", the names from IEEE 754-2008 should be used. That is, binary32, binary64, binary128. (When referring to decimal32, decimal64, decimal128 you still need to specify somewhere that it's BID rather than DPD. And you'll still need to refer to 80-bit extended since that's not an IEEE interchange format.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph at codesourcery.c...

Hi Arsen, On Oct 9, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Arsen Hakobyan <artinetstudio at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have the following test case: > #define FLT_EPSILON 1.19209290E-7 > > int err = -1; > int main() > { > float a = 8.1; > if (((a - 8.1) >= FLT_EPSILON) || ((a - 8.1) <= -FLT_EPSILON)) { //I am > using FLT_EPSILON to check whether (a != 2.0).

Hi all, I have the following test case: #define FLT_EPSILON 1.19209290E-7 int err = -1; int main() { float a = 8.1; if (((a - 8.1) >= FLT_EPSILON) || ((a - 8.1) <= -FLT_EPSILON)) { //I am using FLT_EPSILON to check whether (a != 2.0). err = 1; } else { err = 0; } return 0; } with -O3 optimization level clang generates already incorrect LLVM IR: ; Function Attrs:

> I am not entirely sure this is safe. Transforming this to an fsub could change the value stored on platforms that implement negates using arithmetic instead of with bitmath (such as ours) I think it's probably safe for IEEE754-2008 conformant platforms because negation was clarified to be a non-arithmetic bit flip that cannot cause exceptions in that specification. However, I'm sure