Re: Motion 31: V04.2 Revision of proposed Level 1 text
On 2012-02-29 16:37:10 +0100, Ulrich Kulisch wrote:
> Vincent:
>
> Dan Zuras wrote on Febr. 13, 2012:
>
> >I think that P1788 should not do the job of 754...
> . . .
>
>
> In principle, I agree with whoever said 1788 should
> not do 754 things again. And, indeed, you will find
> the dot products& related reductions as optional in
> clause 9.4 of 754-2008.
>
> Alas, we could not agree on making them mandatory&
> we could not agree on an accuracy policy.
>
> So if 1788 made them both mandatory& exact (as Ulrich
> wishes) it would not be repeating anything from 754.
Well, until Draft 04.3, P1788 Level 1 conflicted with IEEE 754
(even if the specs are different, there should not be two dot
products defined by two different standards -- it would be bad
if each standard defined its own floating-point dot product).
> The exact dot product could just be called 'edot'. It will
> implicitely be introduced with complete arithmetic.
However complete arithmetic is something new. I see that the Level 1
Draft 04.4 made things clear (referring to complete arithmetic, which
was not the case before). So, currently this is fine.
Regards,
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)