[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: agenda

Very sound. No new architecture will ever support *only* extended, so
extended can be safely deleted from the standard, simplifying life for

Looking ahead, the same logic can be applied to other notions of the
standard. Let us look carefully at other places where there is a problematic
"feature" that will necessarily live long for backwards-compatibility
reasons but for which there is no real reason to be imposed on the future.
Dynamic modes and the rest of "implied state" come to mind :-)


----- Original Message -----
From: "David G Hough 754R work" <754r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-754@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: agenda

> The lesson for 754R might be that too much higher performance and not
> upward compatibility with 754 might doom our efforts to be ignored.
> Or is the lesson that
> 754R can only hope to influence new instruction set architectures
> anyway, so it might as well not be unduly bound by backward compatibility?
> Thus our discussion of extended precision carries so much weight.

754 | revision | FAQ | references | list archive