Re: least-positive vs least-positive-normalized

2019-02-13 Thread Marius Gerbershagen
Hey, the issue has now been fixed in the develop branch, we use the {FLT,DBL,LDBL}_TRUE_MIN constants from the C11 standard where available. Am 06.02.19 um 06:39 schrieb Raymond Toy: > > Or maybe ecl really meant to turn on flush-to-zero so that no > denormals can > occur

Re: least-positive vs least-positive-normalized

2019-02-05 Thread Raymond Toy
Sorry for the delay On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:08 PM Daniel Kochmański wrote: > Hey, > > > With ecl 16.1.3, I noticed that least-positive-double-float and > > least-positive-normalized-double-float are exactly equal. This is > > allowed, but ecl can work with denormals since (/ > > least-po

Re: least-positive vs least-positive-normalized

2019-01-29 Thread Daniel Kochmański
Hey, > With ecl 16.1.3, I noticed that least-positive-double-float and > least-positive-normalized-double-float are exactly equal. This is > allowed, but ecl can work with denormals since (/ > least-positive-normalized-double-float 10) is printed correctly. The reason they are the same is becaus

least-positive vs least-positive-normalized

2019-01-29 Thread Raymond Toy
With ecl 16.1.3, I noticed that least-positive-double-float and least-positive-normalized-double-float are exactly equal. This is allowed, but ecl can work with denormals since (/ least-positive-normalized-double-float 10) is printed correctly. Maybe these two values should be different? Or mayb