<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Jul 27, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Matt Arsenault <<a href="mailto:arsenm2@gmail.com" class="">arsenm2@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">This is the only part that I immediately care about. When the new standard is finalized, we can re-visit the other details such as the signed 0 question. Are there any targets that don’t already treat -0.0 as < 0.0?</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">[V]MINxx and [V]MAXxx on x86 return the second argument if the arguments compare equal (but they also don’t handle NaNs “correctly” — they’re really intended to pattern match (a < b ? a : b) instead of the fmin / fmax libm functions.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The newer AVX-512 VRANGExx functions get the sign of zero right.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">– Steve</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>