Judging by the involved macro, if -0.0 is not < 0, then the old code had exactly the same bug.
On 14 May 2015 at 14:50, Thomas Faber <thomas.fa...@reactos.org> wrote: > On 2015-05-14 06:00, tkreu...@svn.reactos.org wrote: >> >> - int sign = (copysignf(1, in) < 0); >> + int sign = (in < 0); > > > >> - if (copysignf(1.0f, value) < 0.0f) >> + if (value < 0.0f) >> ++idx; > > > > I believe the behavior would be different here for negative zero: > copysignf(1.0f, -0.0f) should be < 0.0f > -0.0f should be == 0.0f > > Maybe that's the reason for having these calls? > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
