RE: Motion P1788/M0009.01_ExactDotProduct
Baker is definitely right about this. For example, there are lots of systems
that claim IEEE compliance, but handle demoralized numbers and other
features required by the standard in software.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralph
Baker Kearfott
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:28 PM
To: owner-stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'stds-1788@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M0009.01_ExactDotProduct
Arnold,
Again, for what it's worth:
An IEEE standard need not be entirely in hardware or entirely in
software. That is, a standard-conforming implementation might
be partially in hardware and partially in software. Thus, a
SYSTEM can claim to be standard-conforming, when part of the standard
is in hardware and part is in software. To my knowledge, 754
implementations
have followed this pattern. (Dan might have something to say on this.)
Baker
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
.
.
.
> One also needs to take into account that if some hardware wants to claim
> conformance to the standard, it would have to implement all of the
> standard.
>
> Thus; Would the requirement of an exact dot product be likely to delay
> hardware support for all of interval arithmetic?
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------