[Cfp-interest 2431] Re: HAS_SUBNORM paper

[Jim Thomas]

I think the strongest argument for not just removing the macros is that some code might depend on the macros. This suggests we shouldn’t make changes that might cause implementations to change their definitions of the macros, which the changes to the footnotes do.

- Jim Thomas



> On May 15, 2022, at 5:59 AM, Fred J. Tydeman <tydeman at tybor.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:12:01 -0700 Jim Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> What is the purpose of the added parenthetical text in footnote 27? I find the "and/or" confusing.
> 
> To make explicit that flushing applies to both operands and results.
> "OR" in English is confusing:  some people read it as exclusive, rather than inclusive.

> 
>> The change to footnote 28 would be substantive if it weren't in a footnote. An implementation following the current footnote might have defined the macros as "absent" where the suggest change would indicate that was wrong.
> 
> With the existing wording, systems the flush results, but not operands, are considered absent.
> I contend that they should be indeterminable.

> 
> 
> ---
> 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.