From:	Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200101120636.HAA14898@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: Weird results of log( -1.0 ) with libm.a and without libm.a (fwd)
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:36:04 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010111191955.20014B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 11, 2001 07:25:04 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> 
> Someone complained about log() from libm producing -Inf for a negative 
> argument.  It turns out that this is what the code is supposed to do, and 
> it is even documented in libm.info (type "info libm log").
> 
> Does anyone has an idea why this is the Right Thing to do?

C89 says in 7.5.1:
"On a domain error, the function returns an implementation-defined
value, the value of the macro EDOM is stored in errno."

So there does not seem to be any problem returning -Inf.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -