I'll update this but without reposting the webrev until I can upload the HTML version.
On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Louis Wasserman wrote: > You're right, it'd be WIDTH - 1, but since most of the comments refer to BITS > + 1, that evens out nicely. > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Brian > Burkhalter<[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be WIDTH or WIDTH - 1, i.e., with or without the "implied" bit? > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Louis Wasserman wrote: > > > The comments mention SIGNIFICAND_BITS, which I think should probably be > > SIGNIFICAND_WIDTH?
