Re: [PATCH] max/min on nan arguments

On Sun Aug 2, 2026 at 5:00 PM CEST, Peter McGoron wrote:
>
>  > I am reluctant to bother with negative zero - it is an implementation
> artifact of IEEE and nonsensical, IMHO. Once you start
> adding rules for "consistent" handling of negative zeroes, people
> will give it semantic meaning, which I'd rather not encourage.
>
> Two notes:
>
> 1. Signed zero already has consistent rules in many other parts of=20
> floating-point arithmetic. The biggest example is division, which is in=
=20
> hardware:

I acknowledge the use in arithmetic but I'm not sure whether
this makes much sense in comparisons - the sign itself has not
a "magnitude", zero being (in my uneducated common sense) being
just ... zero. Perhaps I'm being too stubborn. What do others
think?


cheers,
felix