On 12/11/2017 04:57 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> + if (a.cls == float_class_zero || b.cls == float_class_zero) {
> + if (a.cls == float_class_normal) {
> + return a.sign ? float_relation_less : float_relation_greater;
> + } else if (b.cls == float_class_normal) {
> + return b.sign ? float_relation_greater : float_relation_less;
> + } else if (a.cls == b.cls) {
> + return float_relation_equal;
> + }
> + }
This misses out on infinity handling, which should be like normals.
Perhaps better as
if (a.cls == float_class_zero) {
if (b.cls == float_class_zero) {
return float_relation_equal;
}
return b.sign ? float_relation_greater : float_relation_less;
} else if (b.cls == float_class_zero) {
return a.sign ? float_relation_less : float_relation_greater;
}
> + /* The only infinity we need to explicitly worry about is
> + * comparing two together, otherwise the max_exp/sign details are
> + * enough to compare to normal numbers
> + */
I don't think it's wise to rely on the contents of .exp for float_class_inf.
Really, the only valid member for that type is sign. Better as
if (a.cls == float_class_inf) {
if (b.cls == float_class_inf) {
if (a.sign == b.sign) {
return float_relation_equal;
}
}
return a.sign ? float_relation_less : float_relation_greater;
} else if (b.cls == float_class_inf) {
return b.sign ? float_relation_less : float_relation_greater;
}
r~
