On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:03:20 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > I'm still investigating this problem, but and I've reached the > conclusion that it seems ISO C99 special rules, so it's not bug.
I agree (I didn't know that when I wrote the bug report), except for one or two cases I mentioned that didn't follow these rules. > For example, > > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/meeting-materials/2001-07-18-c99.pdf > > page 13 contains: > > (a) pow(-1, +-inf) = 1 > pow(+1, x) = 1 for any x, even a NaN > pow(x, +-0) = 1 for any x, even a NaN The C99 latest public draft has different rules. Perhaps they have changed in the C99 standard, but one has to make sure that this is the case. > I think it's already exceeded to discuss on this Debian BTS. If you > think it's bad behavior, please contact to IEEE 754 standard > committee. Well, the elementary functions are not standardised yet in IEEE 754. This standard is being revised (see <http://www.validlab.com/754R/>) but there won't be anything concerning the elementary functions. So, this is concerning only the ISO/IEC 9899 committe. > I would like to close this bug unless you show more > appropriate reason, is it OK? If the case pow(-inf, nan) is fixed, it is OK (after having a confirmation about case (a) above). -- Vincent Lef�vre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Math�matiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
