And my own misspeaking was a slight mis-description of the relevance of signed zero in the ticket, which I corrected to Zoffix in IRC.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Zefram <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In which aspect did I misspeak? > > > iirc underflow doesn't work quite the way either you or Darren said; it's > not just the signed zero, it's also a status flag indicating that that > signed zero reflects an underflow condition. What it is not is a separate > value as Darren seemed to think. But it's also not merely the signed zero, > although in some cases that may be sufficient. > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine > associates > [email protected] > [email protected] > unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad > http://sinenomine.net > -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates [email protected] [email protected] unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
