Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

according to this document the people who implemented java did not:

"How Java’s Floating-Point Hurts Everyone Everywhere"

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/JAVAhurt.pdf

p.s.: it's by William Kahan, who the primary architect behind the IEEE 754-1985 standard for floating-point computation (and its radix-independent follow-on, IEEE 854)




Would be great to see similar critiques for Python and Go. Found only this for Matlab, on Dr. Kahan's page:

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/MxMulEps.pdf


no language has a good support for IEEE754. The only doable thing is using some weird macros in C/C++, but the rest of the languages ignore the issue altogether. And LLVM too.


C/C++ is not required to use ieee754 as it's float format, so your code would always run under that cloud.

Fortran, D, Factor, and SBCL likely have better support.

But anything where a compiler can reorder things is suspect, if you need exact behavior, since even simple register spilling causes trouble (Intel), among other things compilers may do.


AFAIK C and C++ compilers are not allowed to re-order floating-point arithmetic precisely for that reason. Also, given that all cpus support SSE/Neon/etc. now and I haven't seen a compiler use the 387 FPU, I suspect register spilling shouldn't be an issue these days. Of course, legacy/exotic platforms will deviate from the norm in fun ways.


>AFAIK C and C++ compilers are not allowed to re-order floating-point arithmetic precisely for that reason.

You don't have to reorder to make bugs. Simply having a compiler replace (a-b)+b with a is a bug. Simply flushing an internal 80-bit floating register to a 64 bit memory place, then loading it, causes differences in computations.

Note the C++ spec specifically states it does not require an underlying representation or even any certain level of accuracy (6.7.1.8). So many of these bugs are allowed.

The spec does not even require that compile time evaluation of an expression must match a runtime evaluation of the same expression (8.20.6). When you hit that in code you're going to be surprised.

C/C++ is not required to round-trip floats/doubles when printed and parsed. stream formatting rounding modes are allowed (and are) not exact, leading to different behavior on formatting the same number on different systems.

Dealing with these led to compiler implementation defined behavior added due to market pressures, making C/C++ numerics less of a mess, not anything in the spec.

C/C++ has notoriously been bad at all this, which is why the history of it is littered with such bugs, errors, undefined behaviors, and dozens of compiler switches to try and mitigate such behavior.

For example, many compilers notoriously replaced high-precision Kahan summation with low-precision regular summation because optimizations tell the compiler that such things are allowed.

The state of the art in C/C++ is now passable, but it is still flawed, and has been historically very bad.

And all this met the C/C++ spec of the time. Because if the underlying representation does not require IEEE 754, then it cannot require only transformations for IEEE 754 without making other representations behave badly.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: