Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:31:59 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10003201707320.25247-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000320183001.26722O@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > Not only because of this, but also because how Intel treats the real 
> > indefinite.  It is clear (to me) from that treatment that they use the 
> > sign bit as a flag, to the effect that this NaN was produced by an 
> > operation wher none of the operands was a NaN.
> 
> The sign bit alone does not identify the 'real indefinite'. The mantissa
> is also fixed. So the 'flag', if any, would be the whole 64 bits of
> information, not just the sign bit.

Not really: if you flip the sign but leave the rest alone, the real 
indefinite becomes a QNaN; you don't need to change the rest of the
bits.

- Raw text -