Hello,
I plan to push with a slightly different wording. Rather than
... but with a guaranteed positive sign bit:
using
...but with a guaranteed zero sign bit of a positive value:
I think the latter is clearer.
Thanks,
-Joe
On 8/22/2016 11:41 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hi Joe,
This doc-only patch appears reasonable to me. Approved.
Brian
On Aug 20, 2016, at 11:55 AM, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com
<mailto:joe.da...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Please review the doc-only patch below to address
JDK-8164524: Correct inconsistencies in floating-point abs spec
In brief, Martin noted in JDK-8164199 that a close reading of the
specification of the Math and StrictMath floating-point abs methods
reveals some inconsistencies in the text of the specification versus
the operational semantics of the sample code in term of NaN handling.
To resolve this, the sample code is slightly modified and demoted to
informative rather than normative text.
The core of the edit is changing
Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff & Float.floatToIntBits(a))
to
Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff & Float.floatToRawIntBits(a))
that is the "raw" floating-point => integral conversion rather than
the "cooked" one which has tighter behavioral requirements around
different NaN values, analogous changes for the double cases.
