Date:	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:25:22 +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.4.10.10003201749270.25247-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000322102403.17945D-100000@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:

> > "Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual", v.1 "Basic 
> > Architecture" (I downloaded it from their site as 24319002.pdf, but that 
> > was quite a while ago), Section 7.6, Table 7-18.  The Result column only 
> > mentions a real indefinite if neither of the operands is a NaN.  Your 
> > case appears to be covered by the third possible combination (two QNaNs), 
> > whose result should be a QNaN, i.e. either with the sign bit reset or 
> > with a mantissa that doesn't fit the real indefinite description.
> 
> It's not just 'a QNaN'. You get 'the QNaN with the bigger significand'
> (i.e. mantissa), according to my book.

Yes, but in this case the mantissas were identical.

> Thinking about, this seems to imply
> that the sign bit of the QNaN with the (absolutely) bigger significand is
> just copied as-is.

How do you deduce that?  The manual keeps suspicious silence about the 
sign bit.

- Raw text -