(j3.2006) EX editing

John Reid John.Reid
Thu Apr 6 18:02:25 EDT 2017



Bill Long wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:00 AM, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bill Long wrote:
>>> I recall there was an edit before to fix a missing 0X in the Note. Because it conflicted with 13.7.2.3.2p7
>>>
>>> "	? An input field that is a hexadecimal-significand number consists of an optional sign, followed by the hexadecimal indicator which is the digit 0 immediately followed by the letter X, followed by a hexadecimal significand followed by a hexadecimal exponent.?
>>>
>>> on the grounds that what you output with EX should be readable with EX.  But the output form at 13.7.2.3.6p5 does look wrong.
>>
>> I have proposed the edit for the UK vote.
>>
>> I am also suggesting
>>
>> [278:20] At the end of the third bullet, add "x_0 has the value 1 unless
>> the internal value is zero.? and
>
> While the usual ?hidden 1? bit is always there for non-zero values, making this form the one that corresponds to printing the value in Z format, I don?t think this is actually required. Or, more accurately, this looks like a new requirement and, hence, a technical change.  The x_0 character could be different from 1.  For example,  0X1.6P+0 could also be output as 0XB.0P+0.   The Note does say ?possible? output, not ?required ? output.

You mean 0XB.0P-3. But I see absolutely no advantage in this form. 
0X1.6P+0 nicely represents the bits that are actually stored.

John.



>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
>>
>> [278:6+] In the final value in NOTE 13.14, change "3" to "4".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John.
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:47 PM, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think there is a mistake in 13.7.2.3.6 EX editing (page 278). The IEEE
>>>> standard requires the "hexIndicator" 0X to appear before the first digit
>>>> and it does in NOTE 13.14, but it is not mentioned in the text. I
>>>> suggest the edit
>>>> [278:15] Before "x_0" add "0X".
>>>>
>>>> Is it intended that x_0 be a binary digit? NOTE 13.14 suggests that this
>>>> is so. Should we say so? If not, is it processor dependent? Perhaps the
>>>> output in the second example of NOTE 13.14 should be -0XF.A000P+000
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> J3 mailing list
>>>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>>>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>>>
>>> Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
>>> Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
>>> Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
>>> Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> J3 mailing list
>>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>
> Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
> Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
> Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
> Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>



More information about the J3 mailing list