Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > long double precision

Reply
Thread Tools

long double precision

 
 
vi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Hello
I have a question concerning the precision of long double, think may
be stupid question, I apalogyze if it is so

here a piece of code


#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
using namespace::std;
int main () {
long double toto=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;
cout << sizeof(long double) << endl;
cout << setprecision(21) << toto << endl;
double titi=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;
cout << sizeof(double) << endl;
cout << setprecision(21) << titi << endl;
return 0;
}

and the result
16
0.1234567891234567838
8
0.1234567891234567838

I don't understand why long double and double have the same precision
in the output,
they seem to be different in memory, so the problem come from the
initialisation or for the wrinting in the output?

Thanks in advance for your reply,

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Markus Moll
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Hi

vi wrote:

> Hello
> I have a question concerning the precision of long double, think may
> be stupid question, I apalogyze if it is so
>
> here a piece of code
>
>
> #include <iomanip>
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace::std;
> int main () {
> long double toto=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;


The above literal is a double literal. Therefore, the same value is assigned
to both toto and titi.

Use 0.123456...L or 0.123456...l to denote that the literal is a long double
literal (unlike with integers, the type to be chosen is not immediately
clear. 0.1 is likely not representable in any of the floating point types,
but you would expect its type to be double, not the type with the greatest
precision).

> cout << sizeof(long double) << endl;
> cout << setprecision(21) << toto << endl;
> double titi=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;
> cout << sizeof(double) << endl;
> cout << setprecision(21) << titi << endl;
> return 0;
> }


Markus

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Victor Bazarov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Markus Moll wrote:
> vi wrote:
>
>> Hello
>> I have a question concerning the precision of long double, think may
>> be stupid question, I apalogyze if it is so
>>
>> here a piece of code
>>
>>
>> #include <iomanip>
>> #include <iostream>
>> using namespace::std;
>> int main () {
>> long double toto=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;

>
> The above literal is a double literal. Therefore, the same value is
> assigned to both toto and titi.
>
> Use 0.123456...L or 0.123456...l to denote that the literal is a long
> double literal (unlike with integers, the type to be chosen is not
> immediately clear. 0.1 is likely not representable in any of the
> floating point types, but you would expect its type to be double, not
> the type with the greatest precision).


The problem may actually be simpler: the Standard does not guarantee
that 'long double' has more precision than 'double'. BTW, it is the
case with Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows, for example.

>
>> cout << sizeof(long double) << endl;
>> cout << setprecision(21) << toto << endl;
>> double titi=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;
>> cout << sizeof(double) << endl;
>> cout << setprecision(21) << titi << endl;
>> return 0;
>> }

>
> Markus


V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask


 
Reply With Quote
 
Markus Moll
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Hi

Victor Bazarov wrote:

> Markus Moll wrote:
>> Use 0.123456...L or 0.123456...l to denote that the literal is a long
>> double literal (unlike with integers, the type to be chosen is not
>> immediately clear. 0.1 is likely not representable in any of the
>> floating point types, but you would expect its type to be double, not
>> the type with the greatest precision).

>
> The problem may actually be simpler: the Standard does not guarantee
> that 'long double' has more precision than 'double'. BTW, it is the
> case with Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows, for example.


Phew... as the OP said that his long double was twice the size of a double,
I assumed that the precision would also be greater. However, of course it's
possible that all the space is wasted or used for the exponent (or for
redundant sign-bits for error-correction or something like this )

What does MSVC++ say about sizeof(long double) vs sizeof(double)?

Markus

 
Reply With Quote
 
Victor Bazarov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Markus Moll wrote:
> [..]
> What does MSVC++ say about sizeof(long double) vs sizeof(double)?


8 vs 8

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask


 
Reply With Quote
 
vi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Hello
Great, it works with L!
Thanks


On 16 nov, 11:47, Markus Moll <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi
>
> vi wrote:
> > Hello
> > I have a question concerning the precision of long double, think may
> > be stupid question, I apalogyze if it is so

>
> > here a piece of code

>
> > #include <iomanip>
> > #include <iostream>
> > using namespace::std;
> > int main () {
> > long double toto=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;

>
> The above literal is a double literal. Therefore, the same value is assigned
> to both toto and titi.
>
> Use 0.123456...L or 0.123456...l to denote that the literal is a long double
> literal (unlike with integers, the type to be chosen is not immediately
> clear. 0.1 is likely not representable in any of the floating point types,
> but you would expect its type to be double, not the type with the greatest
> precision).
>
> > cout << sizeof(long double) << endl;
> > cout << setprecision(21) << toto << endl;
> > double titi=0.123456789123456789123456789123456789;
> > cout << sizeof(double) << endl;
> > cout << setprecision(21) << titi << endl;
> > return 0;
> > }

>
> Markus




 
Reply With Quote
 
Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Victor Bazarov wrote:
> Markus Moll wrote:
>> [..]
>> What does MSVC++ say about sizeof(long double) vs sizeof(double)?

>
> 8 vs 8


MSVC++ has all kinds of odd settings which are standard, but different
from any other compiler. Another one is that, if I'm not mistaken,
sizeof(long) == 32 even in 64-bit platforms when compiling a 64-bit
binary. (So if you ever programmed assuming 'long' will be 64 bits in a
64-bit system, then you are for a surprise.)
Makes one wonder how you seek a file larger than 4GB, given that fseek
takes a long as parameter.

(Btw, *why* does it take a long as parameter? Shouldn't it take
size_t? It's not like what MSVC++ does is wrong or against the standard.
It just makes it impossible to seek large files with standard code.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Victor Bazarov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
>> Markus Moll wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> What does MSVC++ say about sizeof(long double) vs sizeof(double)?

>>
>> 8 vs 8

>
> MSVC++ has all kinds of odd settings which are standard, but
> different from any other compiler. Another one is that, if I'm not
> mistaken, sizeof(long) == 32 even in 64-bit platforms when compiling
> a 64-bit binary. (So if you ever programmed assuming 'long' will be
> 64 bits in a 64-bit system, then you are for a surprise.)
> Makes one wonder how you seek a file larger than 4GB,


2GB, actually. 'long' is signed, the largest value is 2^31-1. You
must be thinking 'unsigned long', but that's not what 'fseek' is
taking (as you correctly pointed out).

> given that
> fseek takes a long as parameter.
>
> (Btw, *why* does it take a long as parameter? Shouldn't it take
> size_t? It's not like what MSVC++ does is wrong or against the
> standard. It just makes it impossible to seek large files with
> standard code.)


(a) It takes 'long' because when C Library was standardised (1989)
there was no concern probably with the files larger than what 'long'
can service, and besides, as the files grow, so will 'long', right?
[Well, Microsoft told them all, didn't it?] (b) If you need to seek
in files larger than 'long' allows, use either 'fsetpos' or some OS
specific means. (c) size_t is not a very suitable thing for that,
since 'size_t' is for the sizes of objects. I would rather think
that 'ptrdiff_t' is a better choice. (d) Don't use C Library for
file I/O, use C++ Library, there you'll deal with the special type
for the position, 'std::basic_streambuf:os_type'. And if it's
not large enough, complain to the compiler vendor.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask


 
Reply With Quote
 
BobR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007

Markus Moll wrote in message...
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
> > [snip]
> > The problem may actually be simpler: the Standard does not guarantee
> > that 'long double' has more precision than 'double'. BTW, it is the
> > case with Microsoft Visual C++ on Windows, for example.

>
> Phew... as the OP said that his long double was twice the size of a

double,
> I assumed that the precision would also be greater. However, of course

it's
> possible that all the space is wasted or used for the exponent (or for
> redundant sign-bits for error-correction or something like this )


// #include <iostream>, <limits>
std::cout <<" dbl digits ="
<<(std::numeric_limits<double>::digits)<<std::endl ;
std::cout<<" LD digits ="
<<(std::numeric_limits<long double>::digits)<<std::endl;

/* - output - (GCC(MinGW), win98se)
dbl digits =53
LD digits =64
*/
See what you get from those lines.

>
> What does MSVC++ say about sizeof(long double) vs sizeof(double)?


I asked My Second Virtual Cousin (twice added), and he said nothing! <G>

In Assembler, I used to use eight-byte(dd) and ten-byte(dt) types. That's
not even close to "twice the size" (If we're talking number of bits).
[ assembler == a386 ]

--
Bob R
POVrookie


 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Juha Nieminen wrote:


> > (Btw, *why* does it take a long as parameter? Shouldn't it take
> > size_t? It's not like what MSVC++ does is wrong or against the
> > standard. It just makes it impossible to seek large files with
> > standard code.)


> (a) It takes 'long' because when C Library was standardised (1989)
> there was no concern probably with the files larger than what 'long'
> can service, and besides, as the files grow, so will 'long', right?


I don't think that's true. It's been a while, and maybe I'm
remembering wrong, but I think the problem with using long was
knows already back then. I *think* (that is, I'm far from sure)
that the "answer" was supposed to be fgetpos and fsetpos; fseek,
with long was maintained for reasons of compatilibity with
existing code.

Whatever the case, fsetpos and fgetpos didn't take; people
continued using fseek. And C++ went in yet another direction,
and ended up requiring the impossible in the standard. (The
standard requires round-trip conversions between streamoff and
streampos, but it also requires streampos to contain more
information.)

IMHO, the real problem is more fundamental: text files and seek
simply don't mix, and any attempts by the standard to make it
work are bound to have problems. C (and indirectly C++) sort of
addresses those problems by limiting the possibilities of
seeking in a file opened in text mode. The fact that filebuf
does code translation even in binary mode reintroduces them in
C++. And somewhere in all that, implementations seem to have
forgotten that neither streampos nor streamoff are required to
be integral types. (Or perhaps rather, they don't dare change
them from their historical types for fear of breaking existing
code.)

With regards to size_t: size_t is related to memory size or
addressability, not file size: there's certainly nothing
impossible about a 16 bit system allowing files of more than 4
GB. Posix uses off_t in its standard (but requires it to be an
integral type---of course, Posix systems have to support long
long as well). The logical solution is a different type(def).
Like in fgetpos and fsetpos.

> [Well, Microsoft told them all, didn't it?] (b) If you need to seek
> in files larger than 'long' allows, use either 'fsetpos' or some OS
> specific means. (c) size_t is not a very suitable thing for that,
> since 'size_t' is for the sizes of objects. I would rather think
> that 'ptrdiff_t' is a better choice. (d) Don't use C Library for
> file I/O, use C++ Library, there you'll deal with the special type
> for the position, 'std::basic_streambuf:os_type'. And if it's
> not large enough, complain to the compiler vendor.


Who also has to deal with existing code. How many times have
we seen people implicitly converting streampos (i.e.
std::streambuf:os_type) to some integral type?

Systems have the same problem, with regards to existing code,
and Sun, for example, offers three or four different options to
handle it at the Posix level (not all of which are strictly
Posix conform, obviously).

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:(E-Mail Removed)
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Having compilation error: no match for call to ‘(const __gnu_cxx::hash<long long int>) (const long long int&)’ veryhotsausage C++ 1 07-04-2008 05:41 PM
unsigned long long int to long double Daniel Rudy C Programming 5 09-20-2005 02:37 AM
cannot convert parameter from 'double (double)' to 'double (__cdecl *)(double)' error Sydex C++ 12 02-17-2005 06:30 PM
Re: long long integer and double precision number cyberdude C Programming 2 06-25-2003 07:54 PM
Re: long long integer and double precision number Dan Pop C Programming 0 06-24-2003 12:11 PM



Advertisments