A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=713 ====================================================================== Reported By: nsz Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 713 Category: System Interfaces Type: Omission Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: New Name: Szabolcs Nagy Organization: musl User Reference: Section: remquo Page Number: Line Number: Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2013-06-18 00:00 UTC Last Modified: 2021-06-17 12:30 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: in remquo quo should be unspecified when the result is NaN ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0005384) kre (reporter) - 2021-06-17 12:30 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=713#c5384 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=713#c5381 Don't be absurd, it is not this group's role to invent things (or not unless an invention is absolutely needed, which here, it definitely is not). I'll defer to those who know more about arithmetic functions if anyone cares to correct me, but my suspicion is that when the result here is a NaN, there simply is no quotient, and it makes no sense at all for the application to attempt to examine one. That's why, I'd assume, no-one has ever really been bothered by this issue, other than that what the standard says should be complete(and note that in one case, the standard already says the result is unspecified, it is just that there are other cases that were ignored - by picking a specified required value you would not just be making an editorial correction, you'd be modifying the standard). Further when different implementations do different things is not when we get to invent a solution, it is when we say the results are unspecified, which is clearly the correct thing to do here in any case. The (so far, unless things have changed) informal response from WG14 looks to be exactly what is needed, and the same language should be added here. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2013-06-18 00:00 nsz New Issue 2013-06-18 00:00 nsz Name => Szabolcs Nagy 2013-06-18 00:00 nsz Organization => musl 2013-06-18 00:00 nsz Section => remquo 2013-06-20 15:54 nick Tag Attached: c99 2021-04-14 15:01 nick Note Added: 0005312 2021-04-14 15:23 kre Note Added: 0005313 2021-04-14 15:28 kre Note Added: 0005314 2021-04-15 09:08 geoffclare Note Added: 0005317 2021-04-15 19:58 kre Note Added: 0005319 2021-04-15 19:58 kre Note Deleted: 0005313 2021-04-15 19:59 kre Note Edited: 0005319 2021-06-16 00:40 nick Note Added: 0005379 2021-06-16 08:17 Vincent LefevreNote Added: 0005380 2021-06-16 18:25 shware_systems Note Added: 0005381 2021-06-16 18:27 Don Cragun Note Added: 0005382 2021-06-16 18:28 Don Cragun Note Edited: 0005382 2021-06-16 18:30 shware_systems Note Edited: 0005381 2021-06-16 22:19 Vincent LefevreNote Added: 0005383 2021-06-17 12:30 kre Note Added: 0005384 ======================================================================
