07-201r1
To: J3
From: Malcolm Cohen
Subject: UTI 093
Date: 2007 May 09
1. Introduction
UTI 093 notes that SET_EXPONENT is "broken" (meaningless) for both INF and
NaN. It should also note that it is contradictory for subnormal numbers.
This could be processed as an interp or simply fixed in F2008. However,
since I would recommend different answers in these cases (see discussion),
if we do process it as an interp I would recommend fixing F2008 as a
separate issue.
Also, if we process this as an interp, although it is mentioned in
F03/0042, given the size of that interp (covers all intrinsic functions) it
would probably be more productive to make a separate interp. F03/0042 can
then be limited to the "mathematical functions" or something.
The paper is formatted as an F2008 change but would be easy to modify
to be an interp.
2. Discussion
The basic philosophical question to be answered is should SET_EXPONENT
only return "model" numbers as it claims (the Description says that).
Or should it be allowed to return "extended model" numbers?
(Reminder: "extended model" allows subnormal numbers.)
The evidence in the function is that in F2003 we allowed the argument X to
be a number in the extended model. Therefore I conclude that we should
also have allowed it to return extended model numbers.
The second question is what to do with INF and NaN since neither are
representable even in the extended model. There are two obvious and
defensible possibilities:
(1) they are not allowed as arguments, i.e. it is not standardised and
thefore the program is not standard-conforming.
(2) they are outside the domain of the function and it should therefore
return NaN (and if the argument was an INF, it should raise
INVALID).
If we are to process this as an interp, I suggest that (1) is clearly the
right answer for F2003. However, (2) is clearly a superior answer for
F2008. SET_EXPONENT(INF,any) is either INF*0 or INF/INF, depending on
how you look at it, and both of those are defined to be NaN by IEEE 754.
3. Edits for 07-007r1
[417:13.7.156p1] "Model number" -> "Number", "model" -> "extended model".
{Fix description; this is still not completely accurate - subnormal
results are only approximations to the right answer, and 0/INF/NaN are
being ignored, but at least we're in the right ballpark.
NOTE: As an interp, this is the edit that should be done to F2003.}
[418:13.7.156p5] Transmogrify paragraph as follows
Move the final sentence to the beginning.
Insert new sentences
"If X is an IEEE infinity, the result is an IEEE NaN. If X is an
IEEE NaN, the result is the same NaN."
Change "The" to "Otherwise, the".
This gives the new paragraph as
"If X has the value zero, the result has the same value as X. If X is an
IEEE infinity, the result is an IEEE NaN; IEEE_INVALID signals. If X is
an IEEE NaN, the result is the same NaN. Otherwise, the result has the
value X \times $b^{I-e}$, where $b$ and $e$ are as defined in 13.4 for
the representation for the value of X in the model that has the radix of
X but no limits on exponent values."
{Specify the result for IEEE INF and NaN.}
[418:UTI 093] Delete if resolved.
===END===