On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:33:41PM -0800, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> It may well be there's an issue with gcc's optimizer, since the problem
> goes away without optimization, but I think it's also fair to say that
> the definition of FLOAT_IS_ZERO in include/parrot/misc.h is
> perhaps not optimal here. I'd prefer the simpler definition:
>
> #define FLOAT_IS_ZER0(f) ((f) == 0.0)
>
> but I didn't get anywhere last time I proposed that. I don't know
> what else to do.
I suggested
f >= 0.0 && f <= 0.0
which I believe is identical, even in the face of NaNs, but should also shut
up the whining, er, warning, about comparison.
Because I would be so bold as to say that the constant zero would be
exempted from any useful warning about floating point equality check.
Nicholas Clark
