On 11/24/20 7:46 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Which is the currently take from gcc developers on this semantic change of __builtin_isnanl? Are they considering current behavior of non classifying the 'unnormal' as NAN the expected behavior and waiting glibc to follow it or are they willing to align with glibc behavior?
The gcc ml is also in cc (apologies to those getting 2-3 copies of this!) so I'm hoping to get feedback from both communities to arrive and a consensus.
gcc currently considers unnormals as NaN. I think that is the right behaviour and would like glibc to align with that but before making such a proposal for glibc, I wanted to make sure that this gcc behaviour is defined because currently there is nothing that makes that clear.
Siddhesh
