From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200003272014.WAA11659@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003271356370.2109-100000@acp3bf> from Hans-Bernhard Broeker at "Mar 27, 2000 02:10:38 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:14:26 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
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

According to Hans-Bernhard Broeker:
> Sure. I didn't meant to say that unnormals should be treated as
> indistinguishable from NaN, i.e. the distinction is to be kept, at least
> in situations like printf("%Lf"). But in the definition space provided by
> C99, we have only limited choices what to fpclassify() an unnormal as:
> 
> 	infinite
> 	NaN
> 	normal
> 	subnormal
> 	zero

That's not true. In 7.12, about <math.h> it says:
The macros
	FP_INFINITE
	FP_NAN
	FP_NORMAL
	FP_SUBNORMAL
	FP_ZERO
are for number classification. ... Additional implementation-defined
floating-point classifications, ..., may also be specified by the
implementation."


Right,

							MartinS