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

Re: NaNcodes -- a missed opportunity

On 2011-01-22 11:33:04 -0500, Michel Hack wrote:
Being unfettered by precedent, the DFP handling of NaN payloads is much
better specified than that for BFP (Decimal floating-point vs Binary FP).
There is still ambiguity in NaNcode propagation rules when multiple NaNs
are involved, and even in the single-NaN case preservation of the payload
is only a "should", but at least the preferred interpretation is clear.

What annoys me is that there is a specification, but AFAIK, not yet
applications. IMHO specifications should be justified by applications.
Otherwise how can you tell whether a specification is good or not?

Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

754 | revision | FAQ | references | list archive