On 04/02/2012 10:20, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>> #include
>> #include
>>
>> int main (void)
>> {
>> double x, c, s;
>> volatile double v;
>>
>> x = 1.0e22;
>> s = sin (x);
>> printf ("sin(%.17g) = %.17g\n", x, s);
>>
>> v = x;
>> x = v;
>> c = cos (x);
>> s = sin (x);
>> printf ("s
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Santosh Sharma Poudel wrote:
> You wish to host a new mirror site, in my area. Below mention is my
> personal detail.
>
> Name: Santosh Sharma poudel
> City: kathmandu.
> Country: Nepal.
Thank you for the offer. That probably will be our highest
altitude mirror. :-)
Please
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20120204 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20120204/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On 2/4/2012 9:57 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
\
How can the sine function know which of the millions of numbers
represented by 0x1.0f0cf064dd591p+73 are meant? Applying the sine to
this interval covers the whole result domain of the function.
The idea that an IEEE number necessarily represents an
Robert Dewar writes:
> On 2/4/2012 9:09 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Robert Dewar writes:
>>
>>> But if you write a literal that can be represented exactly, then it is
>>> perfectly reasonable to expect trig functions to give the proper
>>> result, which is unambiguous in this case.
>>
>> How do
On 2/4/2012 9:09 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Robert Dewar writes:
But if you write a literal that can be represented exactly, then it is
perfectly reasonable to expect trig functions to give the proper
result, which is unambiguous in this case.
How do you know that the number is exact?
Sorry
Robert Dewar writes:
> But if you write a literal that can be represented exactly, then it is
> perfectly reasonable to expect trig functions to give the proper
> result, which is unambiguous in this case.
How do you know that the number is exact?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k
On 2/4/2012 7:00 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Vincent Lefevre writes:
Wrong. 53 bits of precision. And 10^22 is the last power of 10
exactly representable in double precision (FYI, this example has
been chosen because of this property).
But it is indistinguishable from 10^22+pi. So both -0.852
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> Wrong. 53 bits of precision. And 10^22 is the last power of 10
> exactly representable in double precision (FYI, this example has
> been chosen because of this property).
But it is indistinguishable from 10^22+pi. So both -0.8522008497671888
and 0.8522008497671888 are
On 4 February 2012 00:06, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 17:40:05 +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> While I fail to see how the "correct value" of
>> cos(4.47460300787e+182)+sin(4.47460300787e+182)
>> can be defined in the 'double' world, cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1 and
>> sin(2*x)=2*sin(x)*cos
10 matches
Mail list logo
