Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:32:04 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id:	<2110-Tue18Mar2003133203+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3E76F355.583E634B@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:22:13 +0000)
Subject:	Re: strto{d,f,ld}, inf and nan patch
References:	<200303161536 DOT QAA01921 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <3E75A26E DOT 18FCF9E5 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <6137-Tue18Mar2003092204+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E76F355 DOT 583E634B AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:22:13 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> [snip]
> > Btw, what does C9x say about <anything> that specifies a bit pattern
> > which is not a NaN?
> 
> Footnote 250 says: "An implementation may use the n-char sequence to determine
> extra information to be represented in the NaN?s significand."

This ``may'' language seems to suggest that we could ignore patterns
that don't produce a NaN, and generate a NaN regardless.  Am I missing
something?

- Raw text -