[Cfp-interest 1919] Re: Errata for IEEE 754-2019

[Mike Cowlishaw]

Yes, that was one of the questions I was going to raise on Wednesday;  I
agree, that one should be omitted unless there's something actually
incorrect.  I really just wanted to 'start the ball rolling'.

David Hough has also mentioned his
https://754r.ucbtest.org/background/future.txt which notes some ambiguities
that probably should be in the errata -- I'll look at those later.

Mike


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Zimmermann [mailto:Paul.Zimmermann at inria.fr] 
> Sent: 15 February 2021 13:32
> To: Mike Cowlishaw
> Cc: cfp-interest at ucbtest.org
> Subject: Re: [Cfp-interest 1914] Errata for IEEE 754-2019
> 
>        Hi Mike,
> 
> I wonder about the entry "Should more special values be added 
> [in 9.2.1]?".
> This is not really an erratum, isn't it? The two given 
> examples of acospi(0) and acospi(-1) follow both from the 
> definition of acospi(x)=acos(x)/pi.
> 
> Paul
> 
> > From: "Mike Cowlishaw" <mfc at speleotrove.com>
> > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:51:38 -0000
> >  
> > Sorry for taking so long to get around to this, but here:
> > 
> >   http://speleotrove.com/misc/IEEE754-errata-2019.html
> > 
> > is a first attempt at the new errata page.  This is a 
> private URL at 
> > present (i.e., not linked from anywhere else).
> > 
> > I suggest that we (CFP) review and amend first, then 
> mention it in the 
> > 754 list for that working group to discuss.
> > 
> > There were a couple that Fred sent me that seemed to refer to CFP 
> > documents and so I didn't add to the errata.  Also -0 is stated as 
> > being equal to +0 in 5.11 (p 43 second paragraph).
> > 
> > Mike
>