https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85811
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 17 May 2018, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85811 > > --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> --- > > Is there sth like -NaN?! > > signbit can tell you. True. I guess that also asks for the guarantee on the operand for tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p returning true. Does it guarantee that OP >= 0 compares as true? Or merely !(OP < 0)? So does it make sense for the function to return true for +NaN or should we err on the side of caution and not do that?
