Revised versions of parts 3 and 4 are now available:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1789.pdf
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1790.pdf
(note that these are not yet expected to address all comments on the
previous versions; see also N1791 and N1792, with minutes
On 2014-01-08 13:31:40 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I advise making such suggestions direct to WG14. (I don't know if such
> names should be reserved for correctly rounded complex arithmetic as well
> - where ordinary complex multiplication and division are not expected to
> be correctly rou
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
> > rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
> > names *only* for the specific functions li
On 2014-01-07 16:45:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Sure, such a correctly rounded function is useful just like correctly
> rounded versions of other functions. The proposed C bindings reserve cr*
> names *only* for the specific functions listed in 9.2 where IEEE 754
> recommends correctly r
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 14:48:01 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return
> > "an implementation-defined approximation". But 9.2 is "Recommended
> > correctly rounded functions", e.g. exp and sin
On 2014-01-07 16:18:48 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > For some of them, this is proved. Here's a summary of the current
> > status:
> >
> > http://tamadiwiki.ens-lyon.fr/tamadiwiki/images/c/c1/Lefevre2013.pdf
>
> Thanks for the details. What's
On 2014-01-07 14:48:01 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return
> "an implementation-defined approximation". But 9.2 is "Recommended
> correctly rounded functions", e.g. exp and sin, for which the strictly
> corresponding C function
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> For some of them, this is proved. Here's a summary of the current
> status:
>
> http://tamadiwiki.ens-lyon.fr/tamadiwiki/images/c/c1/Lefevre2013.pdf
Thanks for the details. What's the current state of the art on the
asymptotic cost of the exhausti
On 2014-01-07 14:36:58 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> (As far as I know, the state of the art on exhaustive searches for
> worst cases for correct rounding - as needed to implement correctly
> rounded transcendental functions with bounded resource use - does
> not make such searches feasible for I
On 01/07/2014 02:48 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> The IEEE 754 operations are corrected rounded. However, the C bindings
>
> (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return
> "an implementation-defined approximation". But
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The IEEE 754 operations are corrected rounded. However, the C bindings
(Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return
"an implementation-defined approximation". But 9.2 is "Recommended
correctly rounded functions", e.g. ex
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/04/2014 07:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > FYI: a draft set of C bindings for additional floating-point functions
> > from IEEE 754-2008 are now available (draft TS 18661-4):
>
> Is there an accurate summary of IEEE 754-2008 available online?
On 01/04/2014 07:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
FYI: a draft set of C bindings for additional floating-point functions
from IEEE 754-2008 are now available (draft TS 18661-4):
Is there an accurate summary of IEEE 754-2008 available online?
I'm asking because IEEE 754 is widely quoted, but nobo
13 matches
Mail list logo
