Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:49:45 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To: <200003191606.RAA22393@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000320114925.24837G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > > The C99 explicitly mentions signs of NaNs in its output specification for
> > > *printf(), and also in strtod()/*scanf() input. I don't think we can just
> > > say the a NaN with the sign bit set is *not* negative.
> > 
> > I think we can, since the sign bit of a NaN is not an indication of
> > it's being negative, when the real indefinite is concerned.
> 
> My reading of the standard says the sign of a negative NaN should be
> printed. Nowhere it says we are allowed not to print it.

The standard talks about ``the sign of a negative NaN'', assuming that
a NaN _has_ a sign.  But the ``real indefinite'' does NOT have a sign,
as Intel manuals clearly say ("the sign bit [...] is not interpreted").

> Please read the standard and form your own opinion.

I _have_ read the standard.  I just don't cope well with its
lawyer-style language and abysmal lack of examples to clarify what it
means, so I prefer to listen for interpretations of others...