[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Henry, >Right -- the point is the erratum _removed_ the text which used to say >that NaN was superbig. Does that mean that the non-pattern approach to excluding NaN: >>> maxInclusive of INF >>> minInclusive of -INF should actually NOT work in conforming processors? .micah -----Original Message----- From: ht@i... [mailto:ht@i...] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:54 AM To: Jeff Rafter ..snip..
|

Cart



