[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arithmetic issues
On Oct 23, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
| From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>
| Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:47:25 -0700
| Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
| > ...
| > That still prevents an implementation from displaying
| > about what type of NaN was returned. Such information could be
| > helpful to find the call which generated the NaN.
| Huh? How does it prevent such? We *could* mandate a readable
| written representation for NaNs without manding that printing a
| should produce that representation, since it would still be
| to signal an error. (And then, once it is signalled, it could
| print *anything it wants*.)
| Moreover, nothing prevents the mandated written representation
| optionally including implementation defined contents, if that
| should be useful.
When different NaNs are returned depending on the circumstances
creating them, I would like my implementation to display them like
Sure, that seems fine. We could mandate that as the readable written
If "expt" means exponent, then you don't get any more information---
in IEEE arithmetic, the exponents of all NaNs of a given precision
are the same.
Brad (who doesn't really want to get into this, ...)