Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:56:09 +0200 From: mayuresh@...he.in <mayuresh@...he.in> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Posits support under Musl libc? On Monday, June 29, 2020 05:34 PM IST, Pascal Cuoq <cuoq@...st-in-soft.com> wrote: > > Can the "musl" libc project consider supporting the Posit number format in the math routines? > > > More details; > > https://posithub.org/docs/Posits4.pdf > > https://posithub.org/docs/BeatingFloatingPoint.pdf > > > And a sample implementation; > > https://gitlab.com/cerlane/SoftPosit > > I am not a musl contributor and have no say in what it should contain or not, but why in hell a software implementation of a non-standard floating-point format that only its inventor seems to think has any concrete advantage over IEEE 754 belong in a libc the goals of which are below? > > “lightweight, fast, simple, free, and strives to be correct in the sense of standards-conformance and safety.” (from https://musl.libc.org/ ) > > Posits are 1 out of 5 (I think they are free). Posits are lightweight, fast, free and produce the same results across platforms, something which IEEE 754 doesn't guarantee. To top that, IEEE 754 isn't even a standard but just a set of guidelines which are usually implemented incorrectly due to misinterpretation or lack of expertise. So in that sense, Posits are safer than Floating-point. That makes Posits, 4 out of 5 (which seems a much better proposition). ~Mayuresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.