Re: Specifying precisionThis is a discussion on Re: Specifying precision within the pl1 forums in Programming Languages category; glen herrmannsfeldt wrote in message ... >Paul van Delst wrote: > >> Compilation of the following test code > >> PROGRAM test_cmplx >> ! Double precision >> INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp = SELECTED_REAL_KIND(15) > >15 digits is about 49.8 bits, which should be double >precision on all IBM machines. It gets more interesting >at 16, which is about 53.12 bits. IBM PL/I compilers >call that double, In non-IEEE format, that's because the maximum precision was 53 bits. People might be surprised if they suddenly started getting quad presision when they expected double precision. > instead of rounding up to quad, ... | ||||||||
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
#1
06-30-2008, 11:53 PM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Specifying precision glen herrmannsfeldt wrote in message ... >Paul van Delst wrote: > >> Compilation of the following test code > >> PROGRAM test_cmplx >> ! Double precision >> INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp = SELECTED_REAL_KIND(15) > >15 digits is about 49.8 bits, which should be double >precision on all IBM machines. It gets more interesting >at 16, which is about 53.12 bits. IBM PL/I compilers >call that double, In non-IEEE format, that's because the maximum precision was 53 bits. People might be surprised if they suddenly started getting quad presision when they expected double precision. > instead of rounding up to quad, as >one might expect. It goes to 64 bits on the IBM PC.  |
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.
