Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:40:10 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003201506350.25247-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000320173729.26722C-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 Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> Eli's point of view, as I read it: No, it is not negative, because the
> term 'negative' does not have a valid mathematical meaning for NaNs.

Not only because of this, but also because how Intel treats the real 
indefinite.  It is clear (to me) from that treatment that they use the 
sign bit as a flag, to the effect that this NaN was produced by an 
operation wher none of the operands was a NaN.

> My point against this reasoning by Eli is that the word 'negative', if
> found in the C99 standard, does not necessarily mean the same as the word
> 'negative' in mathematics.

IIRC, the standard doesn't say what does it mean by ``negative''.