Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring

From	Jason Riedy <jason@lovesgoodfood.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch
Subject	Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring
Organization	Just me.
References	<bc3f766d-88d5-448e-a344-0b840020b2d9@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> <4DC5C0AE.5000200@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <8l9gs6d9ckhfqcmq4u261qqgtu3mu0a1ft@4ax.com> <4DC854BF.8090308@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <iqark9$oqa$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date	2011-05-10 13:24 -0400
Message-ID	<8739kmqxhz.fsf@NaN.sparse.dyndns.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

And Nick Maclaren writes:
> The thing that IEEE gets spectacularly wrong is its handling of
> exceptional values (including zero, but that's not visible
> except via infinities).  And I mean WRONG.

Not everyone agrees with you, and I'm tired of laying out the
same text again and again.

> It is completely and utterly wrong that x = y does not mean
> that 1/x = 1/y.

Unless you're tracing either side of an air foil, where that
matters.  (Or other conformal mapping with a slice.)  Blame the
standard for supporting users and most architects for insisting
the mode you want be dropped.  (Yes, projective mode was in the
original proposal and was removed because it sank the whole
effort.)

> And, by sick, I mean false positive, false negatives and
> dubious semantics.

Again, not everyone agrees with you, although I do only for
allowing a choice on when to signal underflow.  But then
architects blow a fuse.

> And its NaN handling is utterly and completely broken, though
> it wasn't half as bad when it was designed.  Blame the fanatics
> who got that into C99, but not only them.

Again, not everyone agrees with you.  I found it quite handy even
before going to Berkeley and being told the "right" way to use
NaN propagation.

> 1) There is a mandatory trap-diagnose-and-terminate mode, as
> on traditional mainframes and in LIA-1.  The objection to this
> is and was purely dogmatic.

If by "dogmatic" you mean "motivated by vector operations at the
time and still in use" and "motivated by the mainframe policies
in operation then".  Nothing in 754 precludes such a mode.
Standardizing such a mode requires standardizing *what* is being
terminated.  Good luck with that.

> 2) Division by zero creates a NaN, not an infinity, thus
> removing the main gotch caused by the inconsistent
> interpretation of the sign bit.

Which is a choice that screws a set of users who participated
with code and text during initial standardization.

> 3) ALL numeric operations on NaNs return a NaN or raise a
> (hard) exception if they can't (including comparison), and the
> ONLY way to lose a NaN is by an explicit non-numeric test for
> such a value.

Which is a choice that screws a set of users who participated
with code and text both during initial standardization and during
its "re-visioning."

While I don't like all of the resulting sausage, I know how and
why it happened.
-- 
Jason

Thread

Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-07 03:06 -0400
  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 09:44 +0100
    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 11:38 +0100
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 12:21 +0100
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 13:47 +0100
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 09:55 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 19:27 +0100
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 13:54 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-09 13:38 -0400
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> - 2011-05-10 12:40 -0400
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-10 20:32 +0200
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-05-09 13:42 +0200
    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 04:26 -0700
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 12:13 +0100
  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-07 14:59 -0700
    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-09 14:14 -0400
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-09 20:38 +0100
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-09 13:55 -0700
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-10 09:05 +0100
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Jason Riedy <jason@lovesgoodfood.com> - 2011-05-10 13:24 -0400
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-10 18:41 +0100
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 13:56 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 14:04 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 14:06 -0700
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 13:55 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-11 22:15 +0100
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-12 20:52 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 20:20 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 14:55 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-13 12:25 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 11:18 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 13:19 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-14 19:11 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:08 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Jason Riedy <jason@lovesgoodfood.com> - 2011-05-12 23:54 -0400
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-12 01:08 -0400
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 09:27 +0100
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 05:41 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 13:22 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 07:22 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 14:58 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-12 09:23 -0700
                Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 22:59 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:07 +1200
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:17 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:20 +1200
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:30 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:34 +1200
                Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 16:52 -0700
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:13 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 01:54 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-14 01:07 -0700
                Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 09:22 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 17:14 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:11 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-12 16:15 -0700
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:28 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 18:01 -0600
                Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 18:15 -0700
                Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 22:56 -0600
                Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-13 05:18 +0000
                Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-13 23:57 +0000
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:20 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 09:48 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-13 12:55 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 11:25 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-13 08:57 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 16:42 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-13 13:17 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 21:03 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-14 06:43 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 06:55 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-17 12:59 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-17 12:44 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 14:07 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-17 17:20 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-17 15:03 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-14 08:43 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-14 09:17 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-14 09:04 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 17:00 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 16:58 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-14 19:07 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-15 09:40 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-16 11:05 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-16 06:44 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-05-19 20:17 +0000
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-19 15:20 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-19 18:51 -0400
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Petter Gustad <newsmailcomp6@gustad.com> - 2011-05-20 08:01 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-20 15:09 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-20 08:54 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-23 11:11 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-23 18:20 -0400
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-06-03 08:21 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-19 13:31 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-16 09:05 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-16 22:37 +0200
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-18 23:16 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> - 2011-05-17 17:10 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 17:27 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> - 2011-05-17 23:08 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom <tggzzz@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 22:37 +0000
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-18 09:25 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-18 06:25 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-18 14:06 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-18 19:23 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-18 13:48 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-05-19 00:29 +0000
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-19 13:12 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-18 23:27 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-19 15:19 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-20 07:33 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-16 03:14 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-16 10:43 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-16 04:58 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-16 12:40 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-15 10:12 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 13:22 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-15 09:02 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 14:02 -0700
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:18 -0700
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 14:32 -0700
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-09 16:08 -0700

csiph-web