| ??? 01/12/05 20:16 Read: times |
#84874 - why floating point Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I do agree with Andy, of course, that non-FP approaches should be explored first and I also believe that in most cases floating point isn't necessary
The '51 was never intendes as a number cruncher and while there may be '51 apps where floating point is "not necessarily a problem", they are few and far between. If my memory serves me right, the reason floating point is requested is "I need a decimal point". That is the most ridiculous reason I can think of. The issue is NOT whether a '51 can do FP for a given app, the issue is that, if the main purpose of the app is number crunching, the '51 should not have been chosen in the first place. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| floating point calculations & eprom prog | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Look for a | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Floating point math | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh please, not again! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Appropriate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Floating point speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why floating point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why Floating point indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what's real about it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| eg | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nothing more real | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but what about *real* ?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| more human readable ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| display real, of course | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
FP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| eval? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No FP in Keil Eval! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler or Assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why floating-point? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ISP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Please, more details! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Floating or Fixed ? | 01/01/70 00:00 |