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

Basenote drift from Cobol support for IEEE decimal...



From: "Huck, Jerry (BCS)" <jerry.huck@xxxxxx>
To: Dan Zuras IEEE <forieee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Steven Hobbs <Steven.Hobbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: stds-754 <stds-754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:17:31 +0000
Subject: RE: Implementor support for the binary interchange formats

Dan,

I did check my PA-RISC records and found an August 1983 internal
spec documenting a quad format with a hidden bit.  There is a
single table describing four binary floating-point formats: single,
double, a 79-bit "extended" format, and the 128-bit quad format.
The extended and quad formats both had 15-bit exponents.  All
formats had the hidden mantissa bit.

Surprisingly, and I have no memory of this, there was a defined
decimal floating-point format.  While the binary formats were
described with some detail, nothing was said about the decimal
formats beyond a table indicating that most of the instructions
could have either binary or decimal operands.

        I have no memory of decimal either.  Nor of extended.
        It seems unlikely that the decimal was an early version
        of 854 given the time frame.  But the extended might
        have been an attempt to stay with the 8087.  I just
        don't remember.


Given the philosophy of the architecture team, I would guess they
felt it more RISC-like to do the encodings in a uniform way.  I
joined HP in Sept of 1983 as a part of the that architecture team.
Dan was around before my arrival, so his memories are more relevant.

        Only to the extent that they are accurate. :-)

        I started there in late '77 & moved into the
        lab in '79.  It was about that time that Willy
        & I joined the 754 committee.  We started
        designing floating-point chips at that time
        as well.  The RISC machine was the second HP
        machine to use our chips.

The extended and decimal formats were dropped in subsequent revisions.
A public document in 1986 just shows the 3 formats and only binary
floating-point operations.  We had software emulation built into
the kernel to support the quad format and native HW support for
single and double.

The PA-RISC architecture was made public in 1986, so I'm not sure
how we copied each other.  I thought all these decisions were made

        I finished the 754 floating-point chips in 1981.
        (Well, I was part of the team that did.  My cut
        of it was primarily the multiplier chip & minor
        contributions to the others.)  We all attended
        conferences from then on.  The dinner I spoke of
        was in Lake Como in '87 & my dinner companion
        was David Hough from Sun.  It was then that we
        each thought we copied from the other.

when the architectures were still being developed internally.  The
Stanford MIPS and Berkeley RISC architectures were public, but I
didn't think addressed the hidden bit issue in a quad format.  We
might have known about the IBM early RISC designs and need to ask
someone from IBM on their memory of the dates and decisions.

        The IBM RISC machine was using a double-double
        as their 'quad' at the time.  It is unlikely
        we cribbed from them.


My only memory of trying to align encoding of formats was the means
to distinguish signaling from quiet NaNs.  I think we attempted to
align with big-endian machines thinking that might be more interesting
for binary data interoperability.  In the end, no business was won
or lost on that issue.

Jerry Huck
Hewlett Packard

        Thanks, Jerry, for keeping the old documentation.

        I think we have drifted from the topic of IEEE
        decimal support in Cobol enough that perhaps we
        should continue this trip through tired old
        neurons off line from now on.

        No need to bore the children with old war stories.

        Yours,

                            Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: stds-754@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-754@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Zuras IEEE
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 5:51 PM
To: Steven Hobbs
Cc: stds-754; Dan Zuras IEEE
Subject: Re: Implementor support for the binary interchange formats

From: Steven Hobbs <Steven.Hobbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dan Zuras IEEE <forieee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michel Hack 
<hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: stds-754 <stds-754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:12:03 -0500
Subject: RE: Implementor support for the binary interchange formats

It has been a long time but I remember that the HP 128-bit FP and the Sun 1=
28-bit FP were different.  The HP 128-bit float representation had a 112 bi=
ts in the significand plus a "hidden" bit for 113 bits of precision.  The S=
un 128-bit FP float representation also had 112 bits in the significand but=
 had no hidden significand bit for 112 bits of precision.  Note that the In=
tel 80-bit extended type is like the Sun 128-bit float in that neither have=
 a hidden significand bit.

When the Alpha architecture was designed, it included both a 128-bit VAX FP=
 data type and a 128-bit IEEE extended data type.  There were no instructio=
ns for these two floating point types.  Implementation was in software.  Th=
e 128-bit VAX FP had been in the VAX hardware since 1980 and included 1 sig=
n bit, 15 exponent bits, 112 significand bits plus one additional hidden si=
gnificand bit for a total of 113 bits of precision.  The Alpha 128-bit IEEE=
 extended data type was identical to the HP 128-bit float type.  Alpha chos=
e the HP 128-bit representation over the Sun 128-bit representation because=
 it was more compatible with the VAX 128-bit representation which would mak=
e implementation easier (as well as making the architecture more regular.)

. . .

--Steve Hobbs


      This is interesting.

      I distinctly remember mentioning over dinner at an ARITH
      conference that I had copied the quad parameters from
      something I heard from Sun.  Then my dinner companion
      (from Sun) said, "That's funny.  We got it from you guys
      at HP."

      From what you say it is quite possible that I looked at
      the VAX parameters & misunderstood about the lack of a
      hidden bit turning ours into a 113 bit significand.
      Then the Alpha guys might have used our parameters to
      get theirs.

      We have always said we copied from each other.  It looks
      like we may have done just that.  They just did a better
      job of it than I did. :-)

      The things you learn decades after the fact...

      Thanks,

                              Dan


754 | revision | FAQ | references | list archive