I had been hoping that the reference C code would scratch that itch, but you're probably right. I've added a tiny example and a huge example for each. My mistake. I was thinking of the fact that

On 8/12/20 7:05 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: Probably so. That's probably OK. It's much less confusing. I wonder if two examples for each (recip and rsqrt) would help. One with a denormal input and

Yeah, but big is OK, I think. I didn't change the rsqrt table at all. Since the subnormal cases are mostly uninteresting, I think the NOTE that positive subnormal and normal inputs always produce

On 8/12/20 4:21 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: It is pretty big... I'm just looking at the recip at this point. I have a couple of thoughts: In the "Output" column for the 5 new positive and negative

How about this... it's a beast, but I think it works. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-v-spec/blob/vfrecip/v-spec.adoc#149-vector-floating-point-reciprocal-estimate-instruction

On 8/12/20 3:32 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: I almost suggested expanding the current table. That makes it quite a bit larger. But then, it also means there's no need to clarify the relationship

Yeah, let me play around with the presentation a bit. I'm not sure whether breaking it into two tables or expanding the current table will be clearer, but your suggestion holds either way. Thanks

On 8/11/20 4:11 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: With that re-orientation to what the instruction means, it looks correct. I have a couple of comments: Just above the table you use the concept of the

Ah, that clarifies your earlier question. Yeah, LMK what you think.

On 8/11/20 3:00 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: Ah, so you're counting the 7-bit (plus hidden bit) result as the absolutely correct answer. There's no relationship here to the infinite precision

As Cohen responded. The examples provided only work, as you rightly noted, if you have implied guard bits in the system. This is fine, with the caveat that the ISA definition doesn't provision for the

I like the new definition of fixed point. Its quite crisp. Building on the definition we can now argue that any integer number representation is: integer value/2^N With N being a positive

There are no cases where UF should be raised because there are no cases where denormalization causes loss of precision. When the result is subnormal, it is only subnormal by either one or two

Hi Andrew, I'm looking at the cases where the reciprocal is near the boundary between finite and infinite or between normal and denormal. Are you trying to get the boundaries approximately right?

I've PRed a full definition of these instructions. Please sanity-check my work:

I always understood fixpoint to have an implicit denominator that was restricted to a positive (integer) power of 2 (which could be fixed, or could be configured). Arbitrary denominators mean that

Nick, Thank you for your response and proposed clarification. This proposal for how to use the numbers fundamentally realigns our interpretation of how this would be used. This is much closer to the

Hi Coheen, Thanks for the discussion on the fixed-point vector instructions. Most of Chapter 13 predates my involvement with the Task Group, but I think I am able to address one of your

perhaps i am not upto date on this topic. but addresses are fixed point. (integers). and you need vector support for vector loads using the vector accumulators.(indexs). the math, other than

Andy, Thank you for your response. The concern I'm raising is less about "How do I avoid overflow?" and more about "Why are we avoiding the specification of saturating instructions, or an overflow