Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:20:14 -0500
Message-Id: <200003260420.XAA25776@mescaline.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
To: buers AT gmx DOT de
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200003221404.QAA20523@is.elta.co.il> (buers@gmx.de)
Subject: Re: Unnormals???
References: <200003201825 DOT UAA28340 AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <200003221404 DOT QAA20523 AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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

   From: "Dieter Buerssner" <buers AT gmx DOT de>
   Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:08:08 +0100
   CC: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
   Priority: normal
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
   Content-Length: 1355

   On 22 Mar 00, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

   > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
   > 
   > > The original version has a bug in isspeciall, so it prints
   > > +unnormal, --unnormal
   > 
   > By ``bug'' what exactly do you mean?  The double minus sign is indeed
   > a bug, but the "unnormal" part isn't, I think.

   I meant both, not printing NaN and the double minus. 

   > > static const unsigned short pos_nanshort[] = {0,0,0,1,0x7fff,0};
   > > static const unsigned short neg_nanshort[] = {0,0,0,1,0xffff,0};
   > 
   > When converted to a long double, these two have the following bit
   > patterns:
   > 
   >  pos_nanshort = 7fff 0001 0000 0000
   >  neg_nanshort = ffff 0001 0000 0000

   Have your forgotten 0000 at the end of the previous two lines?

   > These are indeed unnormals: their mantissa has a zero MSB.

   I think, they are not unnormals. I think this discussion has shown,
   that unnormals must have a finite exponent.

   > If you wanted _doprnt to support so-called pseudo-NaNs, as described
   > in section 7.4.4 of the Intel manual, then we indeed need to reserve
   > the 0x7fff exponent for a NaN.  But _doprnt currently doesn't support
   > pseudo-NaNs (and I'm not sure it should).

   I think it should, and it also did this before the unnormal check was
   added. (Yes, it was my error not thinking about the unnormal case
   when adding long double support to _doprint.)

   Regards,
   Dieter