They are still working on making CPUs that can do arithmetic. Why not calculus already? I had a pretty hard time in my calculus class and I’m a human! Good luck with the integral calculus, CPUs, you're gonna need it.
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 11:35
Analog computers can do infinitesimal calculus easily.
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 11:58
>>2 False. Precision is limited by noise induced error. Even in an ideal setting with zero noise, you're limited by Planck scale quantization.
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 12:24
>>3 An analog computer with infinitely large components in a zero-noise setting can do infinitesimal calculus easily.
>>3 That's not a problem as long as the user knows the SNR.
Name:
Cudder !MhMRSATORI2015-01-25 15:45
Those ADX extensions are pretty lame. They include
- multiplication without affecting the flags - add-with-carry affecting only carry flag - add-with-carry using overflow flag as a carry flag
It's not the awesomeness that a REP ADD/ADC/SUB/SBB/etc.S{B,W,D,Q} would be:
; esi = source bignum ; edi = destination bignum ; ecx = size in dords rep addsd That would be a real "arbitrary-precision integer arithmetic extension".
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 15:50
>>1 Why would you need arbitrary-precision, when 64 bits are enough for everything?
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 19:34
>>9 Why would you need 64 bits when 32 bits are enough for everything?
>>8 Handling rep prefixes on instructions that introduce dependencies on flags is a pain in the ass. It's not surprising they chose to implement another set of instructions that are easier for the existing OOO architecture to decode and retire.
Seems like an obvious continuation of other work already done on Nehalem, but IANA patent lawyer.
Name:
Anonymous2015-01-25 23:55
Floating-point numbers are an invention of the kikes to bring down the White man.
Why hasn't anyone implemented arbitrary-precision numbers in hardware when doing the same is feasible in software? Because the Jews are the ones making the hardware.