Re: [PATCH] Fix truncf for sNaN input

Keith Packard via Newlib <[email protected]> Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:04:27 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lib.newlib
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Joseph Myers <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't think POSIX specifications should be trusted for how functions 
> should behave with sNaN inputs.  Rather, prefer the specifications from TS 
> 18661-1 (or the latest C2x draft which has TS 18661-1 integrated).

From my reading of that, I should only check for signaling vs quiet NaN,
ensuring that values are the right kind of NaN, but not any specific
value of NaN.

I've adjusted the newlib tests like this:

  /* All signaling nans are the "same", as are all quiet nans */
  if (isnan(correct.value) && isnan(is)
      && (issignaling(correct.value) == issignaling(is)))
  {
	/* PASS */
  }

Does this seem correct?

-- 
-keith

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832 B)