Re: Interval hardware and existing practice
Nate et al,
See my inserted comment.
Baker
Nate Hayes wrote:
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:50:05 -0400
From: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Branch & bound for not everywhere defiend constraints
To: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
.
.
.
I just want to see blazing fast interval hardware. Soon. If we make it easy
for hardware vendors to retrofit intervals into existing floating-point
hardware, like the SSE registers or the Larrabee VPU, I think it increases
chances the hardware vendors will actually provide interval support.
I agree strongly that there are big advantages to designing
the interval standard to fit into existing practice, where
such design does not seriously compromise other attributes
of the interval computation. I see this as particularly so
with regard 754-2008-conforming machines. I am also glad you
are considering trends in hardware.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------