> he did say "assuming they don't have an fdiv-like bug The actual situation was not too similar: the instruction that should speed up the calculation and retu

> he did say "assuming they don't have an fdiv-like bug The actual situation was not too similar: the instruction that should speed up the calculation and returning the correct bits in the specific range, actually behaves as intended, that is, the designers of the instruction assumed the users will know the limitation of it, that is, it was originally assumed that the users were supposed to know that the function is not the "general" one and the "bug" was just in the misleading documentation. By fdiv you've had an instruction that didn't behave as intended, being wrong for some very specific inputs and not only outside of the designed range.