On Aug 14 12:20, Heavenly Avenger wrote:
> On 8/14/2018 10:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I just wonder why returning -NaN when the input is "-nan" isn't the
> > better approach. After all:
> >
> > printf ("nan (\"\") = %f\n", nan (""));
> > printf ("-nan (\"\") = %f\n", -nan (""));
> >
> > ==>
> >
> > nan ("") = nan
> > -nan ("") = -nan
> >
> > So, shouldn't the ideal outcome be this:
> >
> > strtod ("nan", NULL) = nan
> > strtod ("-nan", NULL) = -nan
> > strtold ("nan", NULL) = nan
> > strtold ("-nan", NULL) = -nan
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Corinna
> >
> I'd say it is not the better/best approach as, even though it makes sense,
> all other implementations or linux distributions treat it as a plain "nan".
> So anything written for linux will potentially break on cygwin, I am not
> sure this is the idea behind cygwin, right?My point is, even the glibc printf prints a negative NaN as "-nan", see above. strtod/strtold returning a different NaN value looks inconsistent. Well, never mind. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
