At Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:10:18 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > 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.
Well, even the standard committee, it seems it's difficult to decide these special cases. > > 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). pow(-inf, NaN) returns NaN on glibc-2.3.1. Please check. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
