[Cfp-interest 2636] Re: [SC22WG14.22918] CFP views on CA-N3073-006

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2023-01-16 18:08:55 -0500, Hubert Tong wrote:
> I am not aware of any specific use that would break except that, generally,
> this would be a change in behaviour where most deployed applications
> already manage to operate with the existing behaviour. I would value input
> on what macro changes may be most problematic. From the implementation
> complexity perspective, I believe it would be the changes to
> isnormal/fpclassify on AIX (with issubnormal being added). I also imagine
> that the case where there are finite long double values with exponent
> greater than LDBL_MAX_EXP (which is currently defined to match DBL_MAX_EXP
> on both AIX and Linux on Power) is generally not expected by users of
> LDBL_MAX_EXP (but I am not familiar with what people use LDBL_MAX_EXP for).

In the past, LDBL_MAX_EXP was used in MPFR tests (tset_ld.c), to build
some particular values to test, such as extreme values. I think that
we no longer use it due to definition issues with it with formats like
double-double.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent at vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)