Prev: code speed moving from fortran 77 compiler to f2003 compiler
Next: Call for benchmarks: proposals by 30 June
From: Richard Maine on 21 Jun 2010 21:50
<robert.corbett(a)oracle.com> wrote:

> On Jun 15, 10:41 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > It is not clear to me that the cited interp adresses the question of his
> > thread. (I also note that, at least as of the latest version I see, that
> > interp is not yet completely approved; it says it was passed by a J3
> > letter ballot, but that still leaves WG5 balloting, which has been known
> > to send interps back for rework).
>
> See paper N1816 on the SC22/WG5 website.

So I see. I had looked at the J3 standing document 006, which doesn't
seem to have been updated to reflect that yet (or I didn't find it).

That answers my parenthetical comment about it not yet being completely
approved. But it does not (directly) address my comment about that
interp not asking quite the same question as this thread. I notice that
one of the comments accompanying a "no" vote seemed to assume an answer
to a simillar question, but I have never yet seen J3 or WG5 explicitly
address the question of what "mathematical equivalence" means. They just
seem to assume that it is obvious to all concerned. Seems to me that the
more mathematics one knows, the less obvious the answer is.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: robert.corbett on 22 Jun 2010 02:49
On Jun 21, 6:50 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> <robert.corb...(a)oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 10:41 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > > It is not clear to me that the cited interp adresses the question of his
> > > thread. (I also note that, at least as of the latest version I see, that
> > > interp is not yet completely approved; it says it was passed by a J3
> > > letter ballot, but that still leaves WG5 balloting, which has been known
> > > to send interps back for rework).
>
> > See paper N1816 on the SC22/WG5 website.
>
> So I see. I had looked at the J3 standing document 006, which doesn't
> seem to have been updated to reflect that yet (or I didn't find it).

You are correct. I checked the 006A document, and F03/00078 has not
yet
had its status updated.

Robert Corbett
From: robert.corbett on 22 Jun 2010 03:09
On Jun 21, 6:50 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> I notice that
> one of the comments accompanying a "no" vote seemed to assume an answer
> to a simillar question, but I have never yet seen J3 or WG5 explicitly
> address the question of what "mathematical equivalence" means. They just
> seem to assume that it is obvious to all concerned. Seems to me that the
> more mathematics one knows, the less obvious the answer is.

The "C" votes are "yes, with comments."

It does not take much mathematical knowledge to understand that the
mathematical equivalence rule is a mighty big hammer. Any REAL or
COMPLEX expression is mathematically equivalent to an expression that
overflows or underflows for all value of the primaries of the
expression. Every REAL or COMPLEX expression is mathematically
equivalent to an expression that computationally produces a single
value
for all values of the primaries of the expression, without generating
any
exceptions other than inexact. Absent the IEEE modules, the Fortran
standard offers no guarantees of accuracy in any case.

Bob
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: code speed moving from fortran 77 compiler to f2003 compiler
Next: Call for benchmarks: proposals by 30 June