Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!psgrain!percy!agora!rgrimes From: rgrimes@agora.rain.com (Rodney Grimes) Subject: Re: Is there a fix for floor(), ceil()? Message-ID: <C5IpGr.GoJ@agora.rain.com> Organization: Open Communications Forum References: <1993Apr6.193628.3040@mprgate.mpr.ca> <C5FJCs.12I@unx.sas.com> <C5Fw7w.892@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 09:10:02 GMT Lines: 27 dfox@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (David Fox) writes: >sastdr@torpid.unx.sas.com (Thomas David Rivers) wrote: >>If you do get a math coprocessor; stay away from ULSI. I had >>some problems with it, which other people have reported as well. >>I've had very good results with INTEL and Cyrix coprocessors. I highly recommend staying with either INTEL or Cyrix also... Just read a few reviews and look at the compatibility issues... They clearly show Cyrix to be the leader in compatibility with Intel's chips. >I recommend anyone who needs a math coprocessor (and you do need one >with 386BSD, I think) should get a Cyrix, if the CPU type/speed is >supported by Cyrix. (For example, I don't think Cyrix makes a 386 DX/40 >part.) Wrong, Cyrix is one of the ONLY ones to make a 387DX/40 that works, Intel does not make a 387DX/40! ULSI, ITT and others don't work for beans.. >Essentially I recommend Cyrix because it is MUCH FASTER than Intel, >and more accurate. It's also a bit cheaper. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@agora.rain.com 386BSD patchkit coordinator Wish it paid real money! Accurate Automation Company All opinions belong to me and my company!