From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200003151643.RAA20668@mars.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:43:20 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000315175135.20407H@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Mar 15, 2000 05:56:23 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Eli said:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
> > I just checked. If I have not done anything stupid, it still 
> > suppresses the sign (as suggested by the source of doprint). 
> 
> ???  Here's a snippet from doprnt.c, which was added in preparation for 
> v2.03:
> 
>       *buf = NULL;
>       size = cvtl(_ldouble, prec, flags, &softsign, *fmt, buf,
> 		  buf + sizeof(buf));
>       /*
>        * If the format specifier requested an explicit sign,
>        * we print a negative sign even if no significant digits
>        * will be shown, and we also print a sign for a NaN.  In
>        * other words, "%+f" might print -0.000000, +NaN and -NaN.
>        */
>       if (softsign || (sign == '+' && (neg_ldouble || nan_p == -1)))
> 	sign = '-';
>       nan_p = 0;
> 
> Perhaps you tried without the sign in the format specifier?  That case 
> was left alone on purpose; see the discussions on djgpp-workers about 10 
> months ago (IIRC).

But the sign of a negative nan and inf should be printed regardless of
any sign format specifier. I don't think it is (from reading the
source of <something...>special(), last in doprnt.c; not shown above).

But I could be wrong...


U2, October,

							MartinS