Re: Geometry test on NetBSD (was Re: [HACKERS] RC1?)
Henry B. Hotz <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
From: "Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Patrick Welche <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-ports@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-11-20T17:55:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 1:15 AM -0500 11/20/02, Tom Lane wrote: >Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> Tom, can you clarify why -0 is valid. > >The IEEE spec absolutely thinks that -0 and +0 are distinct entities. >I don't remember why, at one in the morning ... but if you insist I'm >sure that plenty sufficient numerical-analysis reasons can be produced. >The guys who wrote that spec knew what they were doing (that's why it's >been adopted so universally). It's so that 1/(1/-infinity) == -infinity. There are probably other reasons as well. I'm just guessing here, but it's possible NetBSD acquired the bug by trying to be functional on non-IEEE hardware. I hope that whoever found the problem (I don't see that in this thread) filed a bug report with NetBSD. -- The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government. Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu