[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arbitrary precision support opinions
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: arbitrary precision support opinions |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:52:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) |
Martin McDermott wrote:
> Hello
>
> I wondering what people think about arbitrary precision support(mostly
> for large integers).
>
> I'm pretty new to Octave, but it does sound pretty handy and like it
> would put it a step above Matlab. Ive also been looking for a
> interesting project for awhile now, so I'm not expecting/demanding this
> feature out of anyone.
>
> So, do you guys think it would be useful? Would it be used by anyone
> else? Any potential problems or general objections?
>
> At first it could just be a simple ifndef to choose, and maybe later it
> could be a option during runtime (I'm not sure how yet).
>
> This would be a pretty big project for me so Id just like some input
> about it first.
>
> Thanks
> Marty
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
Matlab's fixed point toolbox is based on GMP and does arbitrary
precision integer math, but is painfully slow.. The octave fixed point
toolbox does arbitrary precision integer math with 1 to 31 bits and is
faster than the matlab fixed point code. This stuff is generally for
hardware implementations and so you typically want 8 to 16 bits in real
life.
D.