Hi, On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Matz wrote: > > > both cases. The catch is that strictly speaking (NaN * -1.0) needs to > > deliver NaN, not -NaN (operations involving quiet NaNs need to provide > > one of the input NaNs as result), and here both are not equivalent. OTOH > > the sign of NaNs isn't specified, so I think we could reasonably decide to > > not care about this case (it would have to be checked if the hardware > > multiplication even follows that rule, otherwise it's moot anyway). > > "For all other operations, this standard does not specify the sign bit of > a NaN result, even when there is only one input NaN, or when the NaN is > produced from an invalid operation." (IEEE 754-2008, 6.3 The sign bit). > So no need to care about this case. Ah. I was looking at an old version; thanks. Ciao, Michael.
