Re: Motion 4
On 2009-04-09 09:57:05 +0200, Paul Zimmermann wrote:
> I find the terms of this motion quite confusing. Did you mean "P1788
> compliance implies IEEE 754-2008 compliance"?
I also find them very confusing.
IMHO, P1788 compliance should not be related to IEEE 754-2008
compliance. For instance, NaN support (and even more sNaN/qNaN)
is probably not needed for interval arithmetic (even though it
can help the implementation). Ditto for signed zeros.
Note that even though a processor has NaN and signed zeros support
for IEEE 754 compliance, a user may want to disable their support
if he knows that they will not be useful and that this will make
his program faster (compilers already have such options, so that
one can't ignore them).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)