On 7/23/24 15:18, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/11/24 9:17 PM, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
So why the test for real_isinf on the upper/lower bound? If op1 is
known to be a NaN, then why test the bounds at all? If a bounds
test is needed, why only test the upper bound?
IMHO, logical is if the op1 is a NAN, it's not an infinite number. If
the upper
and lower bound both are finite numbers, the op1 is not an infinite
number.
Under both situations, the result should be set to 0 which means op1
isn't an
infinite number.
Understood, but that's not what the code actually implements:
+ if (op1.known_isnan ()
+ || (!real_isinf (&op1.lower_bound ())
+ && !real_isinf (&op1.upper_bound ())))
+ {
+ r.set_zero (type);
+ return true;
+ }
If op1 is a NaN, then it it can not be Inf. Similarly if both of the
bounds are known not to be Inf, then op1 is not Inf and thus we should
be returning false instead of true. Or am I mis-understanding this API?
the range is in r, and is set to [0,0]. this is the false part of what
is being returned for the range.
the "return true" indicates we determined a range, so use what is in R.
returning false means we did not find a range to return, so r is garbage.
