You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The value representation of floating-point types is implementation-defined.
For other integer types, we did not emphasize this point for them. Isn't the value representation for integer types also implementation-defined? Consider the impact for the value representation with the difference between big-endian and little-endian in a concrete environment, and assume the width for short int is always16.
short i = 2;
// big-endian 00000000 00000010// little-endian 00000010 00000000
The example wants to convey that saying the value representation is implementation-defined does not mean the range of representable values is implementation-defined too.
So, saying that the value representation of floating-point types is implementation-defined is not all that important here. It is not helpful for interpreting whether a floating-pointer type can represent positive infinity or not. As said in #5407 (comment), we consider the existence of these values for a floating-pointer type is implementation-defined, which means that we care more about the range of representable values. I think, change the above rule to that
The range of representable values for floating-pointer types is implementation-defined.
which is more helpful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
[basic.fundamental] p12 says
For other integer types, we did not emphasize this point for them. Isn't the value representation for integer types also implementation-defined? Consider the impact for the value representation with the difference between big-endian and little-endian in a concrete environment, and assume the width for
short int
is always16.The example wants to convey that saying the value representation is implementation-defined does not mean the range of representable values is implementation-defined too.
So, saying that the value representation of floating-point types is implementation-defined is not all that important here. It is not helpful for interpreting whether a floating-pointer type can represent positive infinity or not. As said in #5407 (comment), we consider the existence of these values for a floating-pointer type is implementation-defined, which means that we care more about the range of representable values. I think, change the above rule to that
which is more helpful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: