Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:34:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To: <200003201618.RAA27315@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000320183221.26722P-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 Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> So you, Eli, are saying that if we have a NaN we should print "nan"
> even if the "+" flag is present?

Yes.  Is something wrong with that?

But I don't mind the current compromise, either.  Too bad it seems to be 
against the standard.  But it seems that, amazingly enough, the standard 
doesn't fit well to what Intel processors do, so perhaps we'd elect to 
deviate from the standard on this one.