From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 15 16:09:25 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0581065673; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:09:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.188]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00D18FC16; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c122-106-146-145.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-106-146-145.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.146.145]) by mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oAFG9JqY026881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:09:22 +1100 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:09:19 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Bruce Evans In-Reply-To: <20101116011754.T1430@besplex.bde.org> Message-ID: <20101116030331.L1885@besplex.bde.org> References: <201011131054.oADAsA7I045096@svn.freebsd.org> <20101113125648.GA25183@freebsd.org> <20101116011754.T1430@besplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Best , svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ulrich Spoerlein Subject: Re: svn commit: r215237 - head/lib/msun/src X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:09:25 -0000 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