Talk:IEEE 754-2008 revision

MSVC++
There is an interesting paper that addresses expression evaluation in MSVC++. I'm not quite sure which page it should go on: Jake 22:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dv_vstechart/html/floapoint.asp?frame=true&_r=1

'There are no NaNs in a total arithmetic'
Recently an editor removed a section in the effort to clean up the Talk page. I'm leaving this history pointer here so that there is still some visibility to the removed section. See WP:REFACTOR, which allows removal from a Talk page of 'Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant'. If anyone disagrees about the relevance, please discuss here. EdJohnston 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IEEE 754r/Annex Z & IEEE 754r/Annex L
This needs cleanup and merger into the main article from the subarticle. 70.51.8.233 08:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IEEE 754r/Annex Z
 * I don't agree that this material should be merged. The draft of IEEE 754r which is cited at the foot of this article contains no Annex Z and nothing about arbitrary precision formats. (The word 'arbitrary' does not occur in the text). The last edit in which anyone added new technical information to the Annex Z article was 31 March, 2005, by an editor named JakeVortex who has not come back to the Annex Z article since. It appears that this is an obsolete proposal that might have been considered at one time for inclusion in IEEE754r but is no longer active. Deletion seems the wisest course. EdJohnston 13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See also IEEE 754r/Annex L, as was recently discovered. 132.205.44.5 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IEEE 754r/Annex L

DPD and BID
The combinational field belongs to the DPD format although the standard pretends otherwise. On my reading of the standard the exponent and the part of the significand is encoded as DPD with a twist in the combination fields, or as binary integers with rational bit ordering and a rational field divisions that happens to fall within the combinational field if BID is used. The section on Decimal floating points doesn't make this clear, but then the standard doesn't either.Charles Esson 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

historical/outdated?
What is meant by the phrase "could be viewed as historical or outdated as the 1985 standard it replaced" ? 50.196.145.34 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please list members of the committee
or at least the ones who had a major influence. 24.6.132.239 (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

IEEE 754-2008 or IEEE 754 R?
This article seems to describe IEEE 754 revision, but it starts with "IEEE 754-2008 (previously known as IEEE 754r) was published in August 2008 ...". Also at the beginning there is a link to IEEE 754-2008 which then redirects to this article. --134.102.219.31 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)