From:	"Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" <moscoop AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: AMD processors and assembly language
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:00:40 -0500
Organization:	Nortel Networks
Lines:	34
Message-ID:	<38CEA877.BD82C37@americasm01.nt.com>
References:	<01JMWIIY2ZT69ASSJ4 AT SLU DOT EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	wmerh0tk.ca.nortel.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/785)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

GAMMELJL AT SLU DOT EDU wrote:

>      AMD's 64-bit processors will follow the 486 architecture.  Intel's
> will follow the alpha architecture.  As far as I am concerned, the
> AMD processor (code name sledgehammer) will be the processor of the
> future.  The Intel processor (code name Itanium ?) is, unfortunately,
> not the processor of the future.

And the current Itaniums disperse more than 100W of power running at a
meager 500MHz.
(Compared to a 600 Athlon which I believe runs around 7W).

>      genprec adds two new classes to C++, namely multiple precision
> real numbers and multiple precision complex numbers, and utilities
> for printing them.  All arithmetical operations (and the elementary
> transcendental functions) are overloaded so that one writes code exactly
> as one would write any C++ code).
>      Other such general precision codes exist but I find them harder
> to use and less efficient than genprec.

There is already support for that in libgpp (an Integer and Rational
class).  The Integer supports 'unlimited' size, and the 'Rational' class
keeps 'all' of the precision.  I find them very easy to use:

Integer a;
a = 7000;
a = pow(a,a);
cout << a;

--
(\/) Rolf Campbell (\/)

- Raw text -