[Cfp-interest 1942] Re: Errata for IEEE 754-2019

[Mike Cowlishaw]

OK, thanks, I'll add that to the draft errata next week, along with a couple
from David's 'future.txt' ambiguities.  The latter I'll mark as originating
from '754 working group', or something like that.

Mike 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred J. Tydeman [mailto:tydeman at tybor.com] 
> Sent: 26 February 2021 19:58
> To: 'CFP'; Mike Cowlishaw
> Subject: Re: [Cfp-interest 1914] Errata for IEEE 754-2019
> 
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:51:38 -0000 Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
> >
> > 
> >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).
> 
> Another issue:
> 
> While the values of these expressions are well defined (to be 
> 1), the preferred quantum exponent is not well defined 
> (because it is zero*infinity).
> 
> pow(1,infinity)
> pow(infinity,0)
> pown(infinity,0)
> 
> Perhaps something along the lines of:
> 
>   A finite result from a NaN or infinity operand has a
>   preferred quantum exponent of 0.
> 
> should be added to 9.2.2.Preferred exponents That also covers 
> the cases that involve Q(NAN)
> 
> ---
> Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
> tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
> +1 (702) 608-6093      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
> Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com Savers sleep 
> well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.
>