X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=EI+Un7jJcNBhkwLm4j2AjkkjjvxQp1CgRtIW2Im3WWDof20+VMfMe
	8jQNs6M4LyK03xKYRGEuI3BvMGAixYgF6Vt0wJNmLZmZnt37LdxLC8qip6u3QNKm
	TqGCTFBCsxMc/rqIgOkwfamOw0YYpnepa+FLhmf5Ywo1ugR3SaXSpM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	 bh=li+UyGt/L0psmrSgE1BQ7i2T6DQ=; b=gsh5K1QppDZJrzNMKCx+SwTkOZN/
	NXIgK1rheBNWHQzVrsrYIjpfvEkX5MbjTULLn3apTpA6XRu2j0+GCda2n1A6EyNQ
	RxkvuIX5F3IaCuwcoyzOzsVoX/4cqu0NfRzLVAQ9ue7ERBuSKyYrey2dKi0oluJk
	HVBINtvaIh7Iiew=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-105.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:23:01 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: strtod ("nan") returns negative NaN
Message-ID: <20180814132301.GX3747@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20180814095618 DOT GT3747 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20180814095618_dot_GT3747_at_calimero_dot_vinschen_dot_de> <20180814103900 DOT GU3747 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20180814 DOT 211757 DOT 2066454831159853501 DOT trueroad AT trueroad DOT jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iiZKCn1f/U0ES2iY"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180814.211757.2066454831159853501.trueroad@trueroad.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)

--iiZKCn1f/U0ES2iY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 14 21:17, Masamichi Hosoda wrote:
> > On Aug 14 11:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Aug 14 13:45, Masamichi Hosoda wrote:
> >> > >From a50ee5a4747a99c70469a53fe959f3dc22d3b79a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2=
001
> >> > From: Masamichi Hosoda <trueroad AT trueroad DOT jp>
> >> > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:50:32 +0900
> >> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix strtod ("nan") returns qNaN
> >> >=20
> >> > The definition of qNaN for x86_64 and x86 was wrong.
> >> > So strtod ("nan") returned sNaN instead of qNaN.
> >> >=20
> >> > Furthermore, it was inverted the sign bit with the presence of `-` c=
haracter.
> >> > So strtod ("-nan") returned qNaN.
> >> >=20
> >> > This commit fixes definition of qNaN
> >> > and removes the sign bit inversion when evaluating "nan".
> >> > ---
> >> >  newlib/libc/stdlib/gd_qnan.h | 8 ++++----
> >> >  newlib/libc/stdlib/strtod.c  | 1 +
> >> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> [...]
> > With your patch, strtold looks more correct, but it still prints the
> > sign of NaN:
> >=20
> >   strtod ("nan", NULL) =3D nan
> >   strtod ("-nan", NULL) =3D nan
> >   strtold ("nan", NULL) =3D nan
> >   strtold ("-nan", NULL) =3D -nan
> >   nan ("") =3D nan
> >=20
> > Question: What's wrong with that?  Wouldn't it be more correct if
> > strtod returns -NaN for "-nan" as well?
>=20
> In my investigate,
> strtold sets sign bit when parameter has '-' character.
> The wrong long double NaN definition is negative NaN that is set sign bit.
> So without my patch, both strtold ("nan") and
> strtold ("-nan") return negative NaN.
>=20
> On the other hand, strtod inverts the sign when parameter has '-' charact=
er.
> The wrong double NaN definition is negative NaN.
> So without my patch, strtod ("nan") returns negative NaN
> and strtod ("-nan") returns positive NaN.

Your patch improves the situation, that's a sure thing and I did not
question that.

I just wonder why returning -NaN when the input is "-nan" isn't the
better approach.  After all:

  printf ("nan (\"\") =3D %f\n", nan (""));
  printf ("-nan (\"\") =3D %f\n", -nan (""));

=3D=3D>

  nan ("") =3D nan
  -nan ("") =3D -nan

So, shouldn't the ideal outcome be this:

  strtod ("nan", NULL) =3D nan
  strtod ("-nan", NULL) =3D -nan
  strtold ("nan", NULL) =3D nan
  strtold ("-nan", NULL) =3D -nan

?

Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--iiZKCn1f/U0ES2iY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=kPie
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--iiZKCn1f/U0ES2iY--