Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:09:19 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Best <arundel@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ulrich Spoerlein <uqs@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r215237 - head/lib/msun/src Message-ID: <20101116030331.L1885@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20101116011754.T1430@besplex.bde.org> References: <201011131054.oADAsA7I045096@svn.freebsd.org> <20101113125648.GA25183@freebsd.org> <20101116011754.T1430@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Bruce Evans wrote: > ... > I checked most cases specified in n1156.pdf and found only the following > non-conforming behaviour in FreeBSD: > > %C99 rule -- pow(-Inf, y) returns -0 for y an odd integer < 0. > %fdlibm rule(?) * 17. -INF ** (anything) = -0 ** (-anything) > > fdlibm error: returns +0 instead of -0. I'm not sure if I matched the > rules correctly. False alarm. It actually returns -0 as specified. > %C99 rule -- pow(-1, +-Inf) returns 1. > %fdlibm rule * 9. +-1 ** +-INF is NAN > > fdlibm non-error: pow(-1, +-Inf) is NaN, not 1 as specified by C99. > fdlibm non-error: pow(1, +-Inf) is 1 as specified by C99, not NaN as > claimed in the comment. So I didn't find any non-conforming behaviour in fdlibm except for not conforming to the new pow(-1, +-Inf) bug (which is required for conistency with old bugs). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101116030331.L1885>