X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-YMail-OSG: yTaIz5gVM1kNuJ2qZexK6GEnBow57dyULfbjAk5DsnFQve7okz7kp2uEfdaNEPUxWeTo2WfzIg-- Message-ID: <4628163D.2080407@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:24:13 -0700 From: Tim Prince Reply-To: tprince AT computer DOT org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: newlib: pow function can produce incorrect results. References: <392691 DOT 10784 DOT qm AT web59113 DOT mail DOT re1 DOT yahoo DOT com> In-Reply-To: <392691.10784.qm@web59113.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com cygcary AT yahoo DOT com wrote: > 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. pow() since the very beginning treats negative integral values different from other negative values, so you can't make them totally consistent. Maybe you should stick to Fortran or BASIC. pow(0.9, -Inf) clearly must produce Inf, same as 1/pow(0.9, Inf). pow(-1.1, Inf) should be NaN, but again, newlib doesn't generally go beyond minimum C90 support. As newlib doesn't go very far in the direction of C99 or IEEE754 support, it is out of the realm of cygwin. -- 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/