On 01/18/2012 01:09 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
On 18 January 2012 12:43, Jose Fonseca mailto:jfons...@vmware.com>> wrote:
Looks good to me. Thanks
Should there be a case for -INF while we are at it?
I think you can make arguments both for and against. On the one hand,
C99 requires strtod
On 01/18/2012 12:32 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
Commit ede60bc4670a8d9c14921c77abee1ac57fc0e6bf (glsl: Add isinf() and
isnan() builtins) uses "+INF" in the .ir file to represent infinity.
This worked on C99-compliant compilers, since the s-expression reader
uses strtod() to read numbers, and C99 requir
On 18 January 2012 12:43, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> Looks good to me. Thanks
>
> Should there be a case for -INF while we are at it?
>
I think you can make arguments both for and against. On the one hand, C99
requires strtod to recognize "INF", "+INF", "-INF", "INFINITY",
"+INFINITY", "-INFINITY",
Looks good to me. Thanks
Should there be a case for -INF while we are at it?
Jose
- Original Message -
> Commit ede60bc4670a8d9c14921c77abee1ac57fc0e6bf (glsl: Add isinf()
> and
> isnan() builtins) uses "+INF" in the .ir file to represent infinity.
> This worked on C99-compliant compiler
Commit ede60bc4670a8d9c14921c77abee1ac57fc0e6bf (glsl: Add isinf() and
isnan() builtins) uses "+INF" in the .ir file to represent infinity.
This worked on C99-compliant compilers, since the s-expression reader
uses strtod() to read numbers, and C99 requires strtod() to understand
"+INF". However,