Hi Aleksej,

On 6/10/2013 8:02 AM, Aleksej Efimov wrote:
Hi Joe,
We can replace the "Double.isNaN(d) || Double.isInfinite(d)" with "!Double.isFinite(d)" - I agree that this one check looks better, but we still need to do the -0.0 -> 0.0 conversion to solve the reported problem. And as I understand (might be wrong) modification of this check won't help us to achieve this goal, we still need to do the conversion:
+            //Convert -0.0 to +0.0 other values remains the same
+            d = d + 0.0;
+

Right; changing the set of Double.isFoo methods called earlier doesn't change the need for the (d + 0.0) expression. I just noticed the double isFoo calls when looking at the code and saw an opportunity to use the new method.

Cheers,

-Joe


Regards,
-Aleksej

On 06/09/2013 10:23 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello Aleksej,

Looking at the code, I have another suggestion. If this code can run exclusively on JDK 8 or later, replace

 955             if (Double.isNaN(d) || Double.isInfinite(d))
 956                 return(Double.toString(d));

with

 955             if (!Double.isFinite(d))
 956                 return(Double.toString(d));

Cheers,

-Joe

On 6/9/2013 11:18 AM, Aleksej Efimov wrote:
Joe,

I definitely like it:
1. Its a one-line change - perfect size.
2. Its fastest one from discussed previously.
3. -0.0 -> 0.0 has tests.
4. And it solves our problem.

As a result of all props the next version of webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8015978.v2/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecoffeys/webrev.8015978.v2/>

Thanks
-Aleksej

On 06/07/2013 11:11 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Nice. One-line change, I guess Aleksej would love it :-)

On 6/7/2013 10:19 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
I'll do you one better; you can turn a negative zero into a positive zero leaving other values unchanged like this:

    d = d + 0.0;

In IEEE 754 under the round-to-nearest-even rounding mode required by Java
    -0.0 + 0.0 => (+)0.0

This trick is used in various places in Java's numerical libraries, is required behavior by our specifications, and even has some tests for it :-)

-Joe

On 6/7/2013 8:43 AM, David Chase wrote:
Wouldn't be more efficient to do the following, assuming that the full Java compilation chain respects the trickiness of 0 vs -0:

    if (d == 0.0) {
d=0.0 // Jam -0 == +0 to +0, per http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#function-string

    }

Division's plenty more expensive than assigning a constant, especially on platforms that lack hardware FP division.

David

On 2013-06-07, at 2:03 AM, huizhe wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> wrote:

Hi Aleksej,

According to XPath spec, both positive and negative zero are converted to the string 0, so it seems doesn't matter. But if you want to detect the negative zero, you may do the following:
    if (d == 0.0 && 1/d < 0.0) {
         d=0.0
    }

Recognizing that (-0.0 == 0.0), and (1/(-0.0) == -Infinity).

-Joe







Reply via email to