[Cfp-interest] exceptions and flags

[Jim Thomas]

On Jun 4, 2014, at 4:22 PM, David Hough CFP <pcfp at oakapple.net> wrote:

>> So 754-2008 does not explicitly recommendation a means to detect underflow exceptions, but its recommendation that languages provide alternate exception handling entails detecting underflow exceptions. Maybe Part 5 could leave detection of tiny exact underflow cases as a recommended option, which would allow the simpler slower implementation using flags.
> 
> I'd think it would be one of those situations where conformance to part 5
> is optional, but if you do say you conform, then you conform to all of it.
> Maybe we do need to have separate levels of conformance for different 
> subparts.    The directives for optimization, however,
> only give permission and don't require any implementation effort beyond
> accepting the pragmas.
> 
> Having too many possible subsets is going to defeat portability.

What user problems would arise if some implementations detected underflow exceptions as tiny and inexact?
.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest