Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:12:33 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
Message-Id: <1225-Tue22Apr2003111232+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200304201804.h3KI4eIA013584@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject: Re: Yet another try on nan in strto{f,d,ld}
References:  <200304201804 DOT h3KI4eIA013584 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:04:40 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> Ok. This is what I have. All three functions are now implemented. I
> hope I haven't forgotten to incorporate any comments.

A minor nit: you say twice that the ``-'' causes the sign bit of a NaN
to be set.

Also, I'm a bit worried by the typecast juggling you do: won't that
get in our way when/if we want to add ``restrict'' qualifiers to the
library sources and headers?

Finally, instead of saying

    the return value is a NaN with the mantissa bits set to
    @code{@var{hex-number}&0xfffffffffffff}

isn't it better to say

    the return value is a NaN with the mantissa bits set to
    the lower 52 bits of @var{hex-number}

?  I think the latter is more clear, especially if the reader is not
too familiar with bitwise ops and hex numbers.

Otherwise, I have no comments.