27 Jun
2004
27 Jun
'04
1:48 p.m.
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 07:43, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Tim Blechmann]
That's why I said you probably don't want to see it. I did it mostly
for fun. When I finished coding it I was laughing too hard to test it.
Jan
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:38:24 -0500
Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 13:49, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > > I have a denormal fix without a branch but you probably don't want
> > > to see it ;-)
> > > It's pretty simple, just OR the bits of the exponent together
> > > which gives either
> > > 0 (denormal) or 1, typecast that to float, and then multiply the
> > > original float by that (0.0 or 1.0). Voila, no branch, but it is
> > > messy looking ;-)
indeed sounds more like a fun proposal; nonetheless i'm wondering how
many cycles 'ORing the exponent bits together' would take. with an
8-bit exponent and no assumption about its value made, 8 binary
'shift', 7 'or' and 1 'and' statement if i'm not badly
mistaken. and
if i'm not, a branch will probably hurt less.