X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-YMail-OSG: XxDqZAgVM1khNLBrvZsHXoGyFHewcYU0iVweiaj3
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Cary R." <cygcary AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: newlib: pow function can produce incorrect results.
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <392691.10784.qm@web59113.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Hmmm, something weird is going on at my end. I just
wrote a standalone C program to test just these cases
and some of them now work as expected! I do agree that
-1.0 to either +-infinity should be a nan, but then
using that same logic why is -1.1 to infinity and 0.9
to minus infinity equal to infinity and not nan?
Personally I don't really care which way it's done. I
just would like things to be consistent.

One of the newlib pow implementations has some
comments about how the special cases are handled, but
the comments don't match the behavior I'm getting with
either of my  programs. I guess I need to track down
exactly which pow is being called by each program.
Based on what things look like now I'm betting some
one redefined pow in the original program, grrr.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/