Eric Blake wrote on 2007-12-11:
> 2007-12-11 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> + Fix bug with -0.0L in previous patch.
> + * lib/isnan.c (rpl_isnanl): Make robust to -0.0L and pad bits.
> + * tests/test-isnan.c (main): Also test on zeroes.
> + * tests/test-isnanf.c (main): Lik
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
>
> Here's one idea. Since it fixes the mingw cross-compilation failure of test-
> isnanl-nolibm, I'm installing it; if we come up with something better or more
> efficient in the future, we can alter the test then.
>
> The idea behind this patch is that = doesn't
Bruno Haible clisp.org> writes:
> Ack. It's a bug in the isnanl module.
>
> > I'm not sure how to fix this, but it seems like rpl_isnanl needs to check
for
> > invalid x86 long double bit patterns before falling back to ==.
>
> Either this, or ensure that the "checking where to find the expon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 12/7/2007 4:19 AM:
>
> Either this, or ensure that the "checking where to find the exponent" tests
> return the bit positions instead of "unknown".
>
> But I don't see how to implement either of these two possible fixes f
Eric Blake wrote:
> When compiling natively on mingw:
> ...
> checking where to find the exponent in a 'long double'... word 2 bit 0
> checking where to find the exponent in a 'long double'... (cached) word 2 bit > 0
>
> and the resulting rpl_isnanl works.
>
> But when cross-compiling:
> ...
> ch
