[cfp-interest 3618] Re: Quiet/Signaling NaNs

[Jim Thomas]

I agree with adding “both quiet and signaling” as suggested. 

Normally Annex F does not specify behavior involving signaling NaNs. However, the optional support for signaling NaNs in F.2.2 only includes raising “invalid” and doesn’t apply to signbit.

- Jim Thomas




> On Sep 22, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm at esi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> Currently, F.3#7 says
> 
> The signbit macro, providing the ISO/IEC 60559 isSignMinus operation, determines the sign of its argument value as the sign bit of the values representation. This applies to all values, including NaNs whose sign bit is not generally interpreted by ISO/IEC 60559.
> 
> As per F.2.2#3, this use of NaN would mean a quiet NaN only.
> 
> Should not the end of that sentence read as
> 
> .... all values, including <<< both quiet and signaling >>> NaNs whose sign bit is not generally interpreted by ISO/IEC 60559.
> 
> where obviously my extraneous use of <<< and >>> will disappear.
> 
> Thanks - Damian
> _______________________________________________
> cfp-interest mailing list
> cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest