search for: r210428

...with NaNs was made to always yield a positive NaN. I am wondering whether that was the correct decision. It is of course true that the result of a multiplication is undefined in IEEE, however, we were using multiplication by -1.0 to implement IEEE negate, which is defined to preserve the sign bit. r210428 made 0-NaN have IEEE negate behavior, which is good because it seems to me from r187314 to r210428 there was no compliant way to implement it in LLVM. Does somebody remember what the arguments for the behavior change in r187314 were? It seems more sane to me to preserve the sign bit than to uncondi...

...a positive NaN. I am wondering whether that was the correct >> decision. It is of course true that the result of a multiplication is >> undefined in IEEE, however, we were using multiplication by -1.0 to >> implement IEEE negate, which is defined to preserve the sign bit. >> r210428 made 0-NaN have IEEE negate behavior, which is good because it >> seems to me from r187314 to r210428 there was no compliant way to >> implement it in LLVM. Does somebody remember what the arguments for >> the behavior change in r187314 were? It seems more sane to me to >> p...

...hether that was the correct >>>> decision. It is of course true that the result of a multiplication is >>>> undefined in IEEE, however, we were using multiplication by -1.0 to >>>> implement IEEE negate, which is defined to preserve the sign bit. >>>> r210428 made 0-NaN have IEEE negate behavior, which is good because it >>>> seems to me from r187314 to r210428 there was no compliant way to >>>> implement it in LLVM. Does somebody remember what the arguments for >>>> the behavior change in r187314 were? It seems more...