Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:51:07 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libm sources from cyberoptics
In-Reply-To: <375FC833.9F9C49D2@cyberoptics.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990610184822.20445B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Eric Rudd wrote:

> The only other functions I can think of where a distinction is made
> between +0. and -0. are the log functions.  Currently log(+0.) returns
> -INF with a range error, and log(-0.) returns NaN with a domain error.
> I wonder if I should treat log(-0.) the same as log(+0.).

I think returning different results for 0 and -0 might lead to confusion
in the case of log as well, and therefore we should treat 0 and -0
identically.  I do agree that the case of sqrt is much more clear-cut in
this respect.