Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:33:00 -0500
Message-Id: <200003260433.XAA26337@mescaline.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003222025470.29657-100000@acp3bf> (message from
	Hans-Bernhard Broeker on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:34:17 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
References:  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10003222025470 DOT 29657-100000 AT acp3bf>
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


   So, yes, I'm now convinced we should treat unnormals like NaN, even though
   the Intel/IEEE definition of a NaN doesn't really hold for them.

I disagree.  Making the unnormals stand out is a valuable debugging
aid, since an unnormal can never be a result of any meaningful
computation, unlike a NaN.

   C99 leaves us no other practicable choice.

Since C99 doesn't mention the unnormals, and since they aren't NaNs, I
don't see how the standard prevents us from reporting unnormals as such.