Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:28:12 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@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: <20101115162812.GA76761@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20101116030331.L1885@besplex.bde.org> References: <201011131054.oADAsA7I045096@svn.freebsd.org> <20101113125648.GA25183@freebsd.org> <20101116011754.T1430@besplex.bde.org> <20101116030331.L1885@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Evans wrote: > 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). thanks for all your work. i don't think there are a lot of people able to understand the tiny details of arithmetics, so having your expertise is invaluable. :) if you are interested in solving two more msun mysteries, you might want to have a look at #PR kern/133583 and standards/143358. cheers. alex > > Bruce -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101115162812.GA76761>