https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84949
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) <kretz at kde dot org> --- I've been doing a lot of research into the numeric_limits intent/meaning recently. I also implemented and used alternative interpretations of "has NaN" and "is IEC559". My conclusion: std::numeric_limits means "has NaN bitpattern" and "has IEC559 bit layout" not "has NaNs with NaN behavior" and "has IEC559 behavior". The former are still useful even if the latter don't hold. The C++ standard could be clearer on this matter though. Thus, it seems the status quo is working as intended. It's just that we're missing a standard interface to ask for behavior conformance. Any progress on this issue must go via WG21. Besides: my patch in #6 was not accepted (ABI concerns: specifically ABI breakage from using different -f... flags), so should this PR be closed?
