Date:	Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:06:12 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To:	<200003161038.LAA26422@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000316125955.3856B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> If the FPU treats them as nans, aren't they nans? Why are you saying
> they aren't nans?

A NaN has a specific bit pattern, which these numbers lack.  So calling 
them NaNs would be misleading; in particular, library function `isnan' 
might as well return zero for these numbers (I didn't check, though).

> I suggest we print "nan(unnormal)" or "nan(unnormal0x<bit pattern>)"
> where <bit pattern> is the bits of the double float in hexadecimal.

I'm still not sure this is allowed, but if it is, I think that
"nan(0x<bit pattern>)" is enough.

- Raw text -