JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8164524: Correct inconsistencies in floating-point abs spec

[Joseph D. Darcy]

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.darcy at oracle.com 
> <mailto:joe.darcy at 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.
>