Ah, very good. Yes I see Normative Appendix F in ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (C99), along with
"An implementation that defines _ _STDC_IEC_559_ _ shall conform to the specifications in this annex. Where a binding between the C language and IEC 60559 is indicated, the IEC 60559-specified behavior is adopted by reference, unless stated otherwise." [section F.1] which is, of course, why it is not bolted into the main text of the standard. This carries through to ISO/IEC 9899:2011. Thanks for connecting that particular dot, - Dennis PS: There is no counterpart of Appendix F in ISO/IEC 14882:1998 (C++) nor ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and ISO/IEC 14882:2011. I assume this is because C++ has the numeric_limits class to account for the variations in implementations without any mention of IEC 60559 (or the IEEE counterpart on which it derives). Also, these rely on a variable is_iec559 and specify a number of numeric_limits conditionally on iec559 != false. The declaration of conformance to IEC [60]559 (IEEE 754) does not make any of the exceptions that are in ISO C Appendix F. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 14:08 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0) On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > I earlier quoted the applicable (and only) texts from the Standards > themselves, particularly C++ and also the latest C Standard (2011 and C99 > with all Technical Corrigenda through 2007). > > No matter what is said about pow(0,0) in the C99 Rationale v5.10 Appendix F > of April 2003, there are no such requirements in the Standards, including > those versions that have been adopted since 2003. > > - Dennis > [ ... ] In other words, C99, in a normative Annex F, section 9.4.4, for implementations that conform to IEEE 754 floating point, says: "pow(x, ±0) returns 1 for any x, even a NaN." Do you see something different? I'd like to make sure we're seeing the same thing here. -Rob [ ... ]
