From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Dec 15 09:45:32 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 2AD2A358914; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:45:32 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 396 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:45:30 CET Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94D3E3588D5 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:45:28 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 77909 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2017 17:38:45 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2017 17:38:45 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "'WG5'" Subject: Additional forthcoming unauthorised editorial/technical changes Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:38:47 +0900 Message-ID: <002601d37580$20004a70$6000df50$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01D375CB.8FE88EB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdN1fcbIXsPljlKdRpK93xtWqYp7kQ== Content-Language: en-gb Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01D375CB.8FE88EB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, While I was looking at the list of IEEE functions we require support for in p1 of 17.9 (page 453) I noticed some more problems. 1. There is no such function as "copysign". It's spelled "copySign". 2. There is no such function as "scalb". There is a "scaleB", but unlike IEEE_SCALB that is required to have the second argument of the same type and type parameters as the result of "logB" (we chose REAL for the result of IEEE_LOGB and INTEGER for the argument of IEEE_SCALB, so we fail the consistency requirement). Also unlike IEEE_SCALB it is rounded according to the "applicable" rounding mode, so should not always produce INF with overflow. Perhaps we weaselled "scaleB" by saying it could be done by a code sequence, but anyway we have nothing suitable to require, so we have to delete it from the list. 3. There is no such function as "logb". It's spelled "logB". 4. There is no such function as "nextafter" at all. The 754 committee did not include this function, and they have no function that matches IEEE_NEXT_AFTER. They did include nextUp and nextDown as improved replacements for the functionality (and we have those). So we need to delete "nextafter" from the list, the only question is whether we want to require nextUp and nextDown (viz IEEE_NEXT_UP and IEEE_NEXT_DOWN) instead. 5. There is no such function as "unordered". It's spelled "compareQuietUnordered". So that is three renamings and two deletions. As the text is undeniably wrong as is, these would seem to be uncontroversial. And there is one open question: Should we require support for IEEE_NEXT_UP and IEEE_NEXT_DOWN? In the absence of direction I will assume the answer is "No", i.e. I will not insert anything to require such support. Cheers, -- ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01D375CB.8FE88EB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi folks,

 

While I was = looking at the list of IEEE functions we require support for in p1 of = 17.9 (page 453) I noticed some more problems.

 

  1. There is no such = function as “copysign”.  It’s spelled = “copySign”.
  2. There is no such = function as “scalb”.  There is a “scaleB”, = but unlike IEEE_SCALB that is required to have the second argument of = the same type and type parameters as the result of “logB” = (we chose REAL for the result of IEEE_LOGB and INTEGER for the argument = of IEEE_SCALB, so we fail the consistency requirement).  Also = unlike IEEE_SCALB it is rounded according to the = “applicable” rounding mode, so should not always produce INF = with overflow.  Perhaps we weaselled “scaleB” by saying = it could be done by a code sequence, but anyway we have nothing suitable = to require, so we have to delete it from the list.
  3. There is no such function as “logb”.  It’s = spelled “logB”.
  4. There is no such = function as “nextafter” at all.  The 754 committee did = not include this function, and they have no function that matches = IEEE_NEXT_AFTER.  They did include nextUp and nextDown as improved = replacements for the functionality (and we have those).  So we need = to delete “nextafter” from the list, the only question is = whether we want to require nextUp and nextDown (viz IEEE_NEXT_UP and = IEEE_NEXT_DOWN) instead.
  5. There is no such = function as “unordered”.  It’s spelled = “compareQuietUnordered”.

 

So that is = three renamings and two deletions.  As the text is undeniably wrong = as is, these would seem to be uncontroversial.

 

And there is = one open question: Should we require support for IEEE_NEXT_UP and = IEEE_NEXT_DOWN?  In the absence of direction I will assume the = answer is “No”, i.e. I will not insert anything to require = such support.

 

Cheers,

--

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG = Oxford/Tokyo.

 

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01D375CB.8FE88EB0--