Re: Parsing timestamps?

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.