On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 22:27, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > I wonder if I have the energy to petition the committee to drop, for C202? all > of the "undefined" nonsense that only applies to sign-magnitute and > ones-compliment computers, which haven't been seen since the 70's...
There was certainly a proposal to do that (I think from a Google engineer) for C++, I forget whether the equivalent C change has also been proposed. > > That said, is it valid for this function to be called with a zero > > aSig value ? I think all these normalizeFloat*Subnormal() functions > > assume non-zero sig input, and the only callsite where it's not clearly > > obvious that this is obvious that the sig input is non-zero is the call to > > normalizeFloatx80Subnormal() from addFloatx80Sigs(). So perhaps we > > just need to check and fix that callsite ?? > > You're right -- addFloatx80Sigs is the only use out of 26 that doesn't have a > preceding check for 0. Mmm. My vote is for fixing addFloatx80Sigs -- now we just need to figure out what the desired behaviour is. thanks -- PMM
