[J3] Problem with IEEE_ARITHMETIC examples

[Steidel, Jon L]

Hi Malcolm,

I originally submitted these as part of paper 19-116 earlier this week.  I removed these calls to IEEE_VALUE from 19-116r1 and created an interpretation request in 19-124.

And yes, IEEE_INVALID in my original e-mail was meant to be IEEE_QUIET_NAN.

-jon

From: J3 [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Cohen via J3
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 12:25 AM
To: 'General J3 interest list' <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
Cc: Malcolm Cohen <malcolm at nag-j.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [J3] Problem with IEEE_ARITHMETIC examples

Hi Jon,

I concur with Bill, please submit.  It’s most likely to become an interp, so that format would be good.

Oh, and everywhere where you say “IEEE_INVALID” I think you mean “IEEE_QUIET_NAN”, no?  There better not be any “IEEE_INVALID” arguments to IEEE_VALUE…

Cheers,
--
..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.

From: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org>> On Behalf Of Bill Long via J3
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 5:00 AM
To: General J3 interest list <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>>
Cc: Bill Long <longb at cray.com<mailto:longb at cray.com>>
Subject: Re: [J3] Problem with IEEE_ARITHMETIC examples


> On Jan 18, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Steidel, Jon L via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org<mailto:j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>> wrote:
>
> The examples in 17.11 for IEEE_MAX_NUM, IEEE_MIN_NUM, IEEE_QUIET_EQ, IEEE_QUIET_GE, IEEE_QUIET_GT, IEEE_QUIET_LE, IEEE_QUIET_LT, IEEE_QUIET_NE, IEEE_SIGNALING_EQ, IEEE_SIGNALING_GE, IEEE_SIGNALING_GT, IEEE_SIGNALING_LE, IEEE_SIGNALING_LT, and IEEE_SIGNALING_NE are all flawed. The examples all contain a call to IEEE_VALUE (IEEE_INVALID). The definition of IEEE_VALUE has two arguments, IEEE_VALUE (X, CLASS); X is not OPTIONAL. The simple fix would be to change IEEE_VALUE (IEEE_INVALID) to IEEE_VALUE (0.0, IEEE_INVALID) in all 14 places.

Arg. Thie mildly counts as an internal inconsistency in the standard, but not at the usual level of causing confusion or a logical contradiction.

>
> There is also a problem in the Introduction, page xiii, p2 halfway thru the bullet “Data usage and computation”. “The standard intrinsic operations . . .; the = and /= operations …” should be “The standard intrinsic operations . . .; the == and /= operations . . .”
>

This looks like a simple typo.


> I am not sure if these can be editorial changes, or if they require an interpretation. I can prepare a paper for the next meeting either way. Please advise as to the proper way proceed.

I would submit an ordinary paper to be assigned to /Edit. If Malcolm thinks an Interp is right (especially for the IEEE problem) he will convert (part of) the paper into an interp.

The main difference with making it an interp is that the Standard is modified with the repairs before the next revision is published. And we have to vote on these on the next Interp Ballot. (OTOH, a no-brainer ballot vote would be nice for a change.)

Cheers,
Bill


>
> -jon

Bill Long longb at cray.com<mailto: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

Disclaimer

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. Please see our Privacy Notice<https://www.nag.co.uk/content/privacy-notice> for information on how we process personal data and for details of how to stop or limit communications from us.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20190125/a5f99cc8/attachment.html>