Re: problem on ACS

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Christian Lamparter
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Saturday 30 July 2011 13:29:52 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Christian Lamparter
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Wait a sec... I guess you misunderstood my post about the cut-off.
I meant that you can cut of at the bottom by using log2(max(1, val)).
This ensures that the log2 will always be >= 0 anyway. In fact log2(1) = 0.

I get that now, but my point was that we also had to cap it for a
higher value too. We now restrict the input to values within the data
type and also ensure log2 will always be >= 0.

Doesn't acs [not to be confused with cisco acs] use u64 for all input
data? If so, why do we need to restrict those? After all 2^64-1 ms is
still around 584.9 million years.

(BTW: I don't understand the comment of log2_sane.
log2(2^30) + log2(2^30) = 60. so this should work very well
with a long double. Even with just 80-bit, the range goes from
something like 3.65 * 10^-4951 to 1.19 x 10^4932.)

Input data is u64, however interference factor is long double.

  Luis