Your message dated Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:59:48 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182574: libc6: The pow() function gives incorrect results on
special cases (nan, inf...)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Feb 2003 16:49:19 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 26 10:49:18 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp-102.noc.nerim.net (mallaury.noc.nerim.net) [62.4.17.102]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18o4kA-0007UF-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:49:18 -0600
Received: from ay (vinc17.net1.nerim.net [62.4.18.82])
by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEE162E4E
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:49:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lefevre by ay with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18o4k8-00041I-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:49:16 +0100
From: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libc6: The pow() function gives incorrect results on special cases (nan,
inf...)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.2
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:49:16 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-13
Severity: normal
I get the following results:
1) pow(-inf, nan) = inf
The result should be nan (however, pow(inf, nan) is correct: nan).
2) pow(-inf, 0.5) = inf
pow(-inf, -0.5) = 0
The result should be nan in both cases.
3) pow(-1, inf) = 1
pow(-1, -inf) = 1
I think that the result should be nan in both cases.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Kernel Version: Linux ay 2.4.18-newpmac #1 Thu Mar 14 22:44:49 EST 2002 ppc 7410,
altivec supported GNU/Linux
Versions of the packages libc6 depends on:
ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-7 The Berkeley database routines [glibc 2.0/2.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 182574-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Mar 2003 03:59:50 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 11 21:59:49 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.gr.jp) [218.44.239.73] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18sxPB-0002Eg-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:59:49 -0600
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.jp [218.44.239.73])
by oris.opensource.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 50495C33C6; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:59:48 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:59:48 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#182574: libc6: The pow() function gives incorrect results on special
cases (nan, inf...)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,
USER_AGENT
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
At Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:09:47 +0100,
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 00:43:55 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > Thanks for your investigation. The first rule is still difficult to
> > understand, but the second is clearer than the previous one. If the
> > draft is approved, then we should change the behavior of them (and I
> > guess glibc math core library, thus IBM mathmatical library may be
> > updated).
>
> This is an old draft of the C99 standard, but as I don't have the
> text of the standard itself and as there are very few differences
> with the final standard, I (and other people) use it very often.
> So, you can close the bug now.
Thanks for your long discussion. It's useful for me.
Now I close this bug.
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
