Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/04/22/05:02:28
Eli said:
> > From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:04:40 +0200 (CEST)
> A minor nit: you say twice that the ``-'' causes the sign bit of a NaN
> to be set.
I do? Please post quote both. (I can't find what you mean.)
> Also, I'm a bit worried by the typecast juggling you do: won't that
> get in our way when/if we want to add ``restrict'' qualifiers to the
> library sources and headers?
Do you mean "unconst" or "return *(double *)(&n)"? Or something else?
For unconst, I have no idea. I've just duplicated earlier present
unconsts.
For return ..., I don't think restrict have anything to do with
return.
> Finally, instead of saying
>
> the return value is a NaN with the mantissa bits set to
> @code{@var{hex-number}&0xfffffffffffff}
>
> isn't it better to say
>
> the return value is a NaN with the mantissa bits set to
> the lower 52 bits of @var{hex-number}
>
> ? I think the latter is more clear, especially if the reader is not
> too familiar with bitwise ops and hex numbers.
Yes, much better.
Thanks!
The plan is commit strtof() and strtod() soon. We need to decide if
the integer bit influences the NaNess of a long double for strtold().
Or should I just commit that one too after deciding that that bit must
be set? (It's what *printf() do. A NaN with that bit cleared is showed
as Unnormal.)
Right,
MartinS
- Raw text -