Thanks for the answers!
> > Why? Won't the following work?
> >
> > void setNaN(float &v) {
> > union { float f; int i; } t;
> > t.i = 0x7f800001;
> > v = t.f;
> > }
> >
> As far as I know, this is guaranteed to work with GCC. But it is not kosher
> according to language standards, so other compilers might dislike it. On the
> other hand, other compilers are not guaranteed to optimize the call to
> "memcpy" out either.
Thinking about this setNaN trick, why is it not kosher? It seems
completely OK to me (too bad that I missed this "trick").
Note that my problem is not the unnecessary type-punning warning (I could
live with that), but miscompiled code because of the too strict rule that
GCC uses. Maybe GCC shouldn't optimize around invalid type-punnings?
Geza
