https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126240
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > We have just a single range rather than a union of 2+ for frange, either > that would need to change or we'd need to add anti-range flag to it or > something. > Note, when NaNs can be present, x_1(D) != 1.0 is true for anything but 1.0, > including NaNs. My ugly as sin approach was using an anti-range flag, which made me cringe, knowing full well that ranger started as a way to rid us of anti-ranges :-P. Oh the irony! But I’ll leave it to your capable hands, cause even if I were to work full time on this, I’m sure I’d get it wrong :). Ok, back to changing diapers.
