Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| 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]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.