std.math performance (SSE vs. real)

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/30/2014 12:35 AM, ed wrote:
> On Monday, 30 June 2014 at 06:21:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> When precision is an issue we always choose a software solution. This has been
> my experience in both geophysics and medical device development. It is cheaper,
> faster (dev. time), and better tested than anything we would develop within a
> release time frame.
>
> But D "real" is a winner IMO. At my last workplace we ported some geophysics C++
> apps to D for fun. The apps required more precision than double could offer and
> relied on GMP/MPFR. It was a nice surprise when we found the extra bits in D's
> real were enough for some of these apps to be correct without GMP/MPFR and gave
> a real performance boost (pun intended!).
>
> We targeted x86/x86_64 desktops and clusters running linux (windows and MAC on
> desktops as well).

Good to know!


> We did not consider the lack of IBM 360 support to be an issue when porting to D
> :-P

The 360 is almost as auld as I am!