[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.2.0pre4 detects a "166193960 Hz processor"
    >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Wedgwood <> writes:

    >> Detected 166193960 Hz processor.

    Chris> I _seriously_ doubt it's that accurate -- we perhaps should
    Chris> only stick to 4 or 5 significant figures, beyond that I'm very
    Chris> skeptical... 166.2MHz in this case seems like a more logical
    Chris> claim.

    The number of digits doesn't have to imply the accuracy. I have
    listened to numerous physical scientists from the slide-rule era decry
    the excessive digits found in computer land. Usually it is a
    knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes those extra digits can be useful, and
    since throwing them away is an non-reversible process, sometimes
    keeping them is a good thing. I am not saying that this is one of
    those cases, just suggesting a thoughtful approach.

    IMO, the use of significant digits to imply the accuracy of a value is
    a kludge, loaded with the artifacts of arbitrary decisions. If an
    indication of accuracy is needed, there are better alternatives.

    Russell Senior

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.019 / U:2.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site