Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Making Lemonade (Floating-point format changes)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 21:56:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <v2ggu6$6o7p$2@dont-email.me>
References: <abe04jhkngt2uun1e7ict8vmf1fq8p7rnm@4ax.com>
 <memo.20240512203459.16164W@jgd.cix.co.uk> <v1rab7$2vt3u$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240513151647.0000403f@yahoo.com> <v1to2h$3km86$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240514221659.00001094@yahoo.com> <v234nr$12p27$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240516001628.00001031@yahoo.com> <v2cn4l$3bpov$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2d9sv$3fda0$1@dont-email.me> <20240519203403.00003e9b@yahoo.com>
 <v2etr0$3s9r0$1@dont-email.me> <20240520113045.000050c5@yahoo.com>
 <v2ff99$3vq7q$1@dont-email.me> <20240520153630.00000b5a@yahoo.com>
 <v2g529$4fn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <be08fc860572f2ea80b6d3530161aefd@www.novabbs.org>
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 23:56:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="21ad5e77c968cdc0a6a4218d43683658";
	logging-data="221433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++BayFUp1opgDFfAPPSFXqzYlArXuZC6Q="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gMIn7EMI0ZTX8SU3ddGxxu3ZIzY=
Bytes: 2359

MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
> BGB wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2024 7:36 AM, Michael S wrote:
>>> 
>>> For subnormal x subnormal you don't need result of multiplication at
>>> all. All you need to know is if it's zero or not and what sign.
>>> Even that is needed only in non-default rounding modes and for inexact
>>> flag in default mode.
>>> 
>
>> For most non-tiny formats, the seeming advantage of subnormal numbers 
>> seems small, in any case.
>
> There is, it is called Posit (or UNUM depending).
> No subnormals, wider range then IEEE, more precision than IEEE 
> (most of the time). Whether it is better overall is still a 
> matter of debate. It is harder to implement than IEEE but
> just barely.

My guess is that it will never catch on.  Having accuracy depend
on the number range is an idea that people who prove things about
numerical algorithms tend to dislike.