[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:0.113 / U:8.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site