Re: I vote NO on Motion P1788/M0024.02:RoundedOperations
> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Ulrich Kulisch" <Ulrich.Kulisch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: I vote NO on Motion P1788/M0024.02:RoundedOperations
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:05:51 -0500
>
> Dan Zuras wrote:
> > Ulrich,
> >
> > I quote from your motion:
> >
> > Instead, a future interval arithmetic standard should
> > require that EVERY FUTURE PROCESSOR shall provide the
> > 16 operations listed above as distinct instructions.
> >
> > (emphasis yours in bold).
>
> Dan,
>
> You are quoting version 1 of the motion from 4/15/2011.
>
> We are voting on the friendly amedment made by Prof. Kulisch on 4/29/2011
> which changed that passage to:
>
> "The operations with the directed roundings should be implemented directly
> in hardware for efficiency reasons."
>
> There were also a few other changes based on comments made earlier by Prof.
> Fahmy and others.
>
> I hope people are basing their votes on the right motion!
>
> Nate
Hmm. Interesting. We have 3 files here.
The file Prof Kulisch posted on 4/15 is called RoundOper.pdf
I am quoting from the file that is on the motions website as
documentation for motion 24 which is motion24roundOper.pdf.
It is the file I consulted when I made up my mind & it contains
the passage you see above.
But you are correct, the file Ulrich posted on 4/29 under the
name RoundOper1.pdf contains the modified passage:
The operations with the directed roundings SHOULD be
implemented directly in hardware for efficiency reasons.
However, the paragraph that now preceeds that passage states:
Every IEEE 1788 compliant system SHALL provide the 8
operations with the directed roundings by distinct
operation codes. Each of the 8 operations SHALL be
callable as a single instruction. The rounding SHALL
be an integral part of the arithmetic operation.
Employing an operation with a directed rounding must
be as simple as employing the corresponding operation
with rounding to nearest.
(emphasis his in bold).
Do you REALLY think that's an improvement?
I think the intent is clear & it does not change my mind.
All my arguments apply to this motion as well as the other.
I guess I vote NO whichever is the correct motion.
Dan