Subject:
|
Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 May 1999 09:22:38 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Laurentino Martins <LMARTINS@MARKTESTihatespam.PT>
|
Viewed:
|
1130 times
|
| |
|
|
At 05:50 05-05-1999 Wednesday , you wrote:
[...]
> If you know more about floating point than me, and certainly there must be
> many who fit into this category, please feel free to step in here and toss
> out your ideas with regards to simplified floating point.
Here's my idea:
IMHO we don't need full floating point, we need fixed point with 3 (4?) decimal places tops!
I also think we don't need to use the IEEE standard because there is no advantage in using it (apart from the routines we can use from GCC).
I'm sure it must not be difficult to find in the Internet some floating point routines optimized for size (instead of precision) some guy already developed.
:-)
PS: I know the opposite exists, math routines with extremely high precision.
Laurentino Martins
[mailto:lau@mail.telepac.pt]
[http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/]
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) But what does it benefit us? *This* is creeping featurism at its worst: FORTRAN has it, so we should too.... In my entire professional life I've never had an application for floating point. And then we all switch sides for some of the features (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
