[SuchAnonMuchWow]

3. >> I was resounding told that the absolute error in the numbers are too small to be a problem. Frankly, I did not believe this.

> I would personally also tell that to the author. But there is a much more important reason why correct rounding would be a tremendous advantage: reproducibility.

This is also what the author want from his own experiences, but failed to realize/state explicitly: "People on different machines were seeing different patterns being generated which meant that it broke an aspect of our multiplayer game."

So yes, the reasons mentioned as a rationale for more accurate functions are in fact rationale for reproducibility across hardware and platforms. For example going from 1 ulp errors to 0.6 ulp errors would not help the author at all, but having reproducible behavior would (even with an increased worst case error).

Correctly rounded functions means the rounding error is the smallest possible, and as a consequence every implementation will always return exactly the same results: this is the main reason why people (and the author) advocates for correctly rounded implementations.