Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic

Marty Cohen <mcohen@amsaa-seer.brl.mil>
30 Oct 90 13:16:15 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic eggert@twinsun.com (1990-10-25)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic wsb@eng.Sun.COM (1990-10-25)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic sjc@key.COM (1990-10-26)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com (1990-10-15)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic tim@ksr.com (Tim Peters) (1990-10-27)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic bsy+@CS.CMU.EDU (Bennet Yee) (1990-10-28)
Re: IEEE 754 vs Fortran arithmetic mcohen@amsaa-seer.brl.mil (Marty Cohen) (1990-10-30)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.fortran
From: Marty Cohen <mcohen@amsaa-seer.brl.mil>
Followup-To: comp.compilers
Summary: What is the intention of signed zero?
Keywords: Fortran, arithmetic
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
References: <9010230628.AA22160@admin.ogi.edu> <BURLEY.90Oct24025053@world.std.com> <2408@charon.cwi.nl> <1990Oct28.030338.29498@cs.cmu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Oct 90 13:16:15 GMT

Does IEEE 754 give a purpose for signed zero?
I.E., is it to result from underflow?
If so, then the -pi, +pi result would be appropriate for atan(-+0,x).
--
Marty Cohen mcohen@brl.mil {uunet|rutgers}!brl!mcohen
Custom House Rm 800, Phila. PA 19106 (215)597-8377
[IEEE 754 doesn't give much of a rationale for anything, it's pretty short.
-John]
--

Post a followup to this message

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