From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  2 Oct 2011 14:44:35 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <1a3de3d2869ab078c9a4fdf9bce44982@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111002184015.CD088B852@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <20111002163800.GA12773@polynum.com>
	<20111002175227.2D7F1B856@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<be876586eb3f06dd82a1578d2b964fe6@coraid.com>
	<20111002184015.CD088B852@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] circular fonctions: precision?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2f759824-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> IEEE754-1985 didn't specify circular, hyperbolic or other
> advanced functions. You can have 754 compliant hardware and
> not implement these functions. In any case the standard can
> not dictate the accuracy of functions not specified in it. An
> iterative algorithm may lose more than 1 bit of accuracy since
> iterations won't be done in infinite precision. One can not
> assume accuracy to a bit even where these functions are
> imeplemented in h/w.  For x86, accuracy may be specified in
> some Intel or AMD manual.

that wasn't my reading of the spec.  so you're saying that if
the iterative algorithm loops 53 times, it's free to return any
answer whatever and still be compliant?

- erik