Dave Prosser wrote: > > Matt Wilson wrote: > > From lsb-distribution-test-1.1.3-1 > > > > ************************************************************************ > > /tset/ANSI.os/maths/pow/T.pow 4 Warning > > > > Test Information: > > pow(0.0, -1.0) gave > > RETURN VALUES: expected: -inf, observed: inf > > Bit Representation: expected value: \000\000\000\000\000\000\360\377 > > Bit Representation: observed value: \000\000\000\000\000\000\360\177 > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > > Isn't pow(0.0, -1.0) undefined? From the looks of C99, pow(long > > double x, long double y) may cause a domain error if x is zero and y > > is less than or equal to zero. > > For IEEE F.P. systems, C99 says (F.9.4.4): > > pow(+-0, y) returns +-infinity and raises the "divide-by-zero" > floating point exception for y an odd integer < 0.
And the SUSv2 that the LSB refers to also says there are mutiple answers: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pow.html > > So the problem with the test is that it expects the wrong sign > for the infinity returned given the information in your message. > > -- > Dave Prosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] (908)790-2358 Caldera, Murray Hill, NJ > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- George Kraft IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
