[Haskell-cafe] Desired behaviour of rounding etc.
daniel.is.fischer at web.de
Sat Oct 9 05:07:29 EDT 2010
On Saturday 09 October 2010 06:34:32, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> That code is incorrect. You can't assume that the base for floating
> point numbers is 2, that's something you have to check.
> (POWER6 and z9 has hardware support for base 10 floating point.)
> -- Lennart
Well, in light of
-- We assume that FLT_RADIX is 2 so that we can use more efficient code
#if FLT_RADIX != 2
#error FLT_RADIX must be 2
properFraction (F# x#)
= case decodeFloat_Int# x# of
(# m#, n# #) ->
let m = I# m#
n = I# n#
if n >= 0
then (fromIntegral m * (2 ^ n), 0.0)
appearing in the RealFrac instance for Float, I thought it would be a safe
optimisation to use for Float and Double in GHC.Float (oddly, FLT_RADIX ==
2 is only used for Float, not for Double).
I can of course wrap the base 2 code in an "#if FLT_RADIX == 2" and have
general code for other bases, but as long as the #error stays, that seems
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Fischer <daniel.is.fischer at web.de>
> > The methods of the RealFrac class produce garbage when the value lies
> > outside the range of the target type, e.g.
> > Prelude GHC.Float> truncate 1.234e11 :: Int -- 32-bits
> > -1154051584
> > and, in the case of truncate, different garbage when the rewrite rule
> > fires:
> > Prelude GHC.Float> double2Int 1.234e11
> > -2147483648
> > I'm currently working on faster implementations of properFraction,
> > truncate, round, ceiling and floor for Float and Double, so I'd like
> > to know
> > - does it matter at all what garbage is returned in the above case?
> > - if it does, what is the desired behaviour (at least for Int, I can't
> > cater for all possibilities)?
> > On a related note, in my benchmarks,
> > truncFloatGen :: Integral a => Float -> a
> > truncFloatGen = fromInteger . truncFloatInteger
> > truncFloatInteger :: Float -> Integer
> > truncFloatInteger x =
> > case decodeFloat x of
> > (m,e) | e == 0 -> m
> > | e < 0 ->
> > let s = -e
> > in if m < 0
> > then - ((-m) `shiftR` s)
> > else m `shiftR` s
> > | otherwise -> m `shiftL` e
> > is more than twice as fast as GHC.Float.float2Int, the corresponding
> > for Double almost twice as fast as double2Int.
> > Can anybody confirm that the above is faster than float2Int on other
> > machines/architectures?
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
More information about the Haskell-Cafe