From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a392f49ebae6958 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.uni-stuttgart.de!carbon.eu.sun.com!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Dowie Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2005 & IEEE 754r ? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:43:51 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Message-ID: References: <1107359947.724262.52490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-154-188-69.range81-154.btcentralplus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1107366231 13357 81.154.188.69 (2 Feb 2005 17:43:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:43:51 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1107359947.724262.52490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (Windows/20041201) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8133 Date: 2005-02-02T17:43:51+00:00 List-Id: britt@acm.org wrote: > Is anyone involved with the Ada 2005 revision also tracking the > proposed changed to IEEE-STD-754 (the binary floating point arithmetic > standard)? I'm asking because the draft of 754r cites several languages > (C99, Java,C Fortran, PL/1, COBOL) in its rationale but it doesn't > mention Ada anywhere. The revised standard defines new decimal > arithmetic types and it would be a bad thing if they are somehow > incompatable with decimal types in Ada. I don't know enough to evaluate > this myself so I'm hoping someone else can look at this and see if > there are any potential conflicts. > > See http://754r.ucbtest.org/drafts/754r.pdf and > http://754r.ucbtest.org/ for more information. From: Minutes of the 24th ARG Meeting, 17-19 September 2004, Madison, Wisconsin, USA "AI-315/02 Full support for IEC 559:1989 (Other AI versions) Pascal (the AI�s author) proposes No Action. There is a big implementation impact, and it�s unclear that there is sufficient demand. Tucker wonders if we should encourage implementations to follow this model. Pascal says that there are problems with it; being able to query flags has a significant negative impact on instruction scheduling. So you�d have to do operations in order, which would negate 11.6. Tucker says this still a good place to start. Steve says that doing this would require a non-standard mode for an implementation. Erhard would like to leave it open for the future, as this is a good idea that we couldn�t finish satisfactorily. Some AIs have been around for a long time (e.g. AI-51). Pascal would not like to leave it open; he prefers a clean list of AIs. Other AIs (like preconditions) would be also fall into the category of good ideas that we didn�t have sufficient time/effort/experience with. John volunteers to put information about AIs that might be good ideas but we couldn�t finish into the Rationale. No Action: 8-0-1." Cheers -- Martin