From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/07/2025 7:16 am, minforth wrote:   
   > Am 10.07.2025 um 21:33 schrieb Paul Rubin:   
   >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:   
   >>>> I believes IEEE specifies both 80 bit and 128 bit formats in addition   
   >>>> to 64 bit.   
   >>> Not 80-bit format.  binary128 and binary256 are specified.   
   >>   
   >> I see, 80 bits is considered double-extended.  "The x87 and Motorola   
   >> 68881 80-bit formats meet the requirements of the IEEE 754-1985 double   
   >> extended format,[12] as does the IEEE 754 128-bit binary format."   
   >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_precision)   
   >>   
   >> Interestingly, Kahan's 1997 report on IEEE 754's status does say 80 bit   
   >> is specified.  But it sounds like that omits some nuance.   
   >>   
   >> https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/IEEE754.PDF   
   >   
   > Kahan was also overly critical of dynamic Unum/Posit formats.   
   >   
   > Time has shown that he was partially wrong:   
   > https://spectrum.ieee.org/floating-point-numbers-posits-processor   
      
   When someone begins with the line it rarely ends well:   
      
   "Twenty years ago anarchy threatened floating-point arithmetic."   
      
   One floating-point to rule them all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)