RE: I vote NO on Motion P1788/M0024.02:RoundedOperations
Looks there is some confusion on the website re what is exactly the motion, maybe we should update the website and redo the voting? Dan also has an reasonable point re some shalls still remaining, maybe it was an oversight?
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Zuras Intervals
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Nate Hayes
Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dan Zuras Intervals
Subject: 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