Re: least-positive vs least-positive-normalized

Hey,

> With ecl 16.1.3, I noticed that least-positive-double-float and
> least-positive-normalized-double-float are exactly equal.  This is
> allowed, but ecl can work with denormals since (/
> least-positive-normalized-double-float 10) is printed correctly.

The reason they are the same is because portable C gives us DBL_MIN at
our disposal (and its counterparts for other floats).
> 
> Maybe these two values should be different?

 Maybe we could hardcode other value when ieee-floating-point is in
featuers (fwiw it is an optional build flag). I'm not sure what would
be the right thing here.
> 
> Or maybe ecl really meant to turn on flush-to-zero so that no
> denormals can
> occur?
> 

ECL signals a floating-point-overflow/underflow conditions unless
disabled by an internal function si:trap-fpe.

Regards,
Daniel