[Cfp-interest] WG14 IEEE 754-C binding meeting minutes 2018/07/25

[David Hough CFP]

> I think cfp and 754 agree except for rootn(-inf, n) for even n > 0:
>=20
> cfp says it=E2=80=99s the same as rootn(-0, n) for even n < 0 (without =
div-by-zero), which cfp and 754 both say is +inf.
> 754 says it's qNaN with invalid.

Looking just at the case rootn(-inf,2), you might think it might coincide with
sqrt(-inf) which 754 defines it invalid, even though sqrt(-0) is -0 which
suggests rootn(-0,2) could be -0, but 754 defines it +0.
I think we might need to take another look at 754.