[Cfp-interest 1817] Re: Exact subnormal results

[Damian McGuckin]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, David Hough CFP wrote:

> Certainly the different invalid cases constitute sub-exceptions.  I'd 
> also consider exact-underflow and inexact-underflow to be sub-exceptions 
> of underflow, but that's just my opinion.

and destructive underflow, i.e. where

 	|rounded result| < b^(emin-p+1)

where p is the precision which means it cannot even be represented as a'
sub-normal number and hence is zero.

And this is different to the flush-to-zero destructive underflow.

But we digress into non-C23 areas.

I find messing with an errno of ERANGE or EDOM does awful things to my
optimization. Are there any plans to get rid of these two cases in the
standardization iteration after C23?

Regards - Damian

Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer