Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:42:41 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003161757070.22148-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000319104230.13691B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > This is not the part of the standard I was worried about.  C89 explicitly 
> > required math functions not to crash, but to set errno instead.  What 
> > does C99 say about that?
> 
>        7.12.1  Treatment of error conditions
> 
>        [#1]  The  behavior  of each of the functions in <math.h> is
>        specified  for  all  representable  values  of   its   input
>        arguments, except where stated otherwise.

The problem is not with NaNs as arguments, it's with finite arguments
which cause an Invalid Operation exception.  I don't think the above
quotation takes care of that case.