Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:11:31 +0100

From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:11:31 +0100 |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

References: | 23-01-092 23-02-003 23-02-019 23-02-025 23-02-026 23-02-029 23-02-033 |

Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="44892"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |

Keywords: | arithmetic, comment |

Posted-Date: | 10 Feb 2023 13:18:46 EST |

In-Reply-To: | 23-02-033 |

On 2/8/23 11:19 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

*> With a ones-complement or two's-complement mantissa the hidden bit*

*> would just have the same sign as the sign bit, so this trick is not*

*> tied to sign-magnitude representation.*

Please explain the provenience or purpose of that hidden bit with

integral numbers. How can integral values be *normalized* so that a

previously required bit can be hidden? Sign extension to a higher number

of bits does not increase the value or accuracy of an integral number.

DoDi

[He said "mantissa", so it's floating point. I've certainly seen scaled

integer arithmetic, but normalized integers other than +/- zero in systems

with signed zeros seems unlikely. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.