Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: possible decision on interchange representation



Michel,
        I fully agree
Jürgen

Baker,
I would prefer that everybody has an opportunity to see the COMPLETELY FINAL text before we close the voting.
 is this possible?
Jürgen

P1788
I hope that nobody was confused by my numbering of motions (the final vote motion 63) in contrast to George's (the final vote motion 62) and Baker's (the final vote motion 0000)
and I apologize for not having exposed version 9.3 on the website
Jürgen

Am 20.06.2014 22:44, schrieb Michel Hack:



So I think the solution is to leave "Level 4" issues *entirely* to the
IEEE 754-2008 standard, with the exception of decorations (because the
754 standard explicitly excludes specification of integer formats).
We can give bit-level examples for both big-endian and little-endian
machines, but we should refer the reader to 754-2008 for details, and
not try a partial explanation.  (The current bitstring exposition is
indeed incomplete since it doesn't mention the hidden unit bit, though
it is technically correct since it only "describes" the significand.)

For decorations, I suggest the following small-integer encoding:
    ill    0
    trv    4
    def    8
    dac   12
    com   16
with a remark "This encoding permits future refinement without
disturbing the natural propagation order of the decorations,
and fits within the range of a C signed CHAR, namely 0..127."

I will now try to come up with actual text replacement for sections 14.4
and C6.2 -- the latter also needs to be cleansed of bit-string mentions,
notwithstanding my first impressions.  Meanwhile I'll be monitoring your
comments.  Please don't be silent; we don't have much time.

Michel.
---Sent: 2014-06-20 21:56:05 UTC