From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4558 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2020 12:56:26 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Jun 2020 12:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9965 invoked by uid 550); 29 Jun 2020 12:56:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 9932 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2020 12:56:21 -0000 From: =?utf-8?q?mayuresh=40kathe=2Ein?= To: musl@lists.openwall.com User-Agent: SOGoMail 4.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:56:09 +0200 Message-ID: <32b4-5ef9e500-33-6d961680@199533904> X-Forward: 127.0.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?==?utf-8?q?_=5Bmusl=5D?= Posits support under Musl =?utf-8?q?libc=3F?= On Monday, June 29, 2020 05:34 PM IST, Pascal Cuoq wrote: > > Can the "musl" libc project consider supporting the Posit number fo= rmat 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 fl= oating-point format that only its inventor seems to think has any concr= ete advantage over IEEE 754 belong in a libc the goals of which are bel= ow? > > =E2=80=9Clightweight, fast, simple, free, and strives to be correct i= n the sense of standards-conformance and safety.=E2=80=9D (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, IEE= E 754 isn't even a standard but just a set of guidelines which are usua= lly implemented incorrectly due to misinterpretation or lack of experti= se. So in that sense, Posits are safer than Floating-point. That makes Posits, 4 out of 5 (which seems a much better proposition). ~Mayuresh