Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 11/07/2025 8:22 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:

mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:

What is there not to like with the FPU? It provides 80 bits, which
is in itself a useful additional format, and should never have problems
with single and double-precision edge cases.

 
If you want to do double precision, using the 387 stack has the
double-rounding problem
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Double_rounding>.  Even if you
limit the mantissa to 53 bits, you still get double rounding when you
deal with numbers that are denormal numbers in binary64
representation.  Java wanted to give the same results, bit for bit, on
all hardware, and ran afoul of this until they could switch to SSE2.
 

The only problem is that some languages and companies find it necessary
to boycott FPU use.

 
The rest of the industry has standardized on binary64 and binary32,
and they prefer bit-equivalent results for ease of testing.  So as
soon as SSE2 gave that to them, they flocked to SSE2.
...

I wonder how much of this is academic or trend inspired?  AFAICS Forth
clients haven't flocked to it else vendors would have SSE2 offerings at
the same level as their x387 packs.