On Tue Nov 16 10, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Bruce Evans wrote: > > >... > >I checked most cases specified in n1156.pdf and found only the following > >non-conforming behaviour in FreeBSD: > > > >%C99 rule -- pow(-Inf, y) returns -0 for y an odd integer < > >0. > >%fdlibm rule(?) * 17. -INF ** (anything) = -0 ** (-anything) > > > >fdlibm error: returns +0 instead of -0. I'm not sure if I matched the > >rules correctly. > > False alarm. It actually returns -0 as specified. > > >%C99 rule -- pow(-1, +-Inf) returns 1. > >%fdlibm rule * 9. +-1 ** +-INF is NAN > > > >fdlibm non-error: pow(-1, +-Inf) is NaN, not 1 as specified by C99. > >fdlibm non-error: pow(1, +-Inf) is 1 as specified by C99, not NaN as > >claimed in the comment. > > So I didn't find any non-conforming behaviour in fdlibm except for not > conforming to the new pow(-1, +-Inf) bug (which is required for conistency > with old bugs).
thanks for all your work. i don't think there are a lot of people able to understand the tiny details of arithmetics, so having your expertise is invaluable. :) if you are interested in solving two more msun mysteries, you might want to have a look at #PR kern/133583 and standards/143358. cheers. alex > > Bruce -- a13x _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
