On 1/15/23 13:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 11:32:27AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As discussed in the PR, for trapping math, do not fold overflowing
operations into +-INF as doing so could elide a trap.
There is a minor adjustment to known_isinf() where it was mistakenly
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 11:32:27AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> As discussed in the PR, for trapping math, do not fold overflowing
> operations into +-INF as doing so could elide a trap.
>
> There is a minor adjustment to known_isinf() where it was mistakenly
> returning true for an [infinity U
As discussed in the PR, for trapping math, do not fold overflowing
operations into +-INF as doing so could elide a trap.
There is a minor adjustment to known_isinf() where it was mistakenly
returning true for an [infinity U NAN], whereas it should only return
true when the range is exclusively +IN
As discussed in the PR, for trapping math, do not fold overflowing
operations into +-INF as doing so could elide a trap.
There is a minor adjustment to known_isinf() where it was mistakenly
returning true for an [infinity U NAN], whereas it should only return
true when the range is exclusively +IN
