Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:42:10 -0500
Message-Id: <199901191742.MAA10687@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: moshier AT mediaone DOT net, robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <58ca22ce.36a4c038@aol.com> (Kbwms@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Bug when printing long doubles
References:  <58ca22ce DOT 36a4c038 AT aol DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


> I see nothing wrong with printing an item of poorly formed bits as NaN.
> In the final analysis, that's what it is, isn't it?  When a print loop
> inadvertently wades through ASCII or binary data, what's to be done?
> In my view, *some* analysis must be done by the person presumably in
> charge.

Invalid strings are printed as "<null>".  Can't invalid FPs be printed
as "<invalid>" ?  I mean, we still have to do the work to properly
support this, but it's better than crashing.

I also suspect that there are more NaN patterns than just the one that
is "the" NaN pattern.  I wouldn't have a problem with "NaN" being
printed for *all* invalid patterns (except known infinities and
printable denormals, of course).