From: "Dan Nagle" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:45 AM>
> robin wrote:
> > From: "Phillip Helbig" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>No. The standard specifies that it takes twice the storage of REAL.
>
> > That's right. That's what DOUBLE PRECISION has always meant.
> > And it gives double precision.
>
> No, double precision gives more precision than single precision.
> How much more is up to the processor.
Are you having another problem with "DOUBLE PRECISION" too?
It gives twice the storage of "REAL".
You already have a problem with DOUBLE PRECISION :-
> >>In fact, DOUBLE PRECISION is _not_ portable,
> >>However, precision is associated with the number of bits of the
> >>mantissa,
In the context of DOUBLE PRECISION, it signifies the
use of twice the amount of storage as REAL.
> >> not the total storage occupied. Most (all?) implementations
> >>have significantly more than twice the precision for DOUBLE PRECISION
> >>than for REAL.
>
> > That's generally true, but some implementations took/take
> > extra exponent bits for double precision.
>
> Which is standard-conforming
No-one said that it wasn't.
And it's portable, as I said before.
|