[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000
From: |
Dmitri A. Sergatskov |
Subject: |
Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000 |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:21:48 -0500 |
Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden> wrote:
> So, Octave appears to be fairly adherent to the IEEE 754 standard. I can
> get used to having the -0 floating about, but it is kind of annoying in
> arithmetic operations seeing this as I really only think of +/-0 related to
> convergence.
>
I do not believe Octave does anything special wrt IEEE 754 beyond what
underlying C++ compiler/library does.
That came up few times and the conclusion was that it is not Octave's business
to fix compiler bugs/missing features.
GCC compliance with IEEE 754 is iffy at the moment. The result may even change
with different optimization level.
Dmitri.
--
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, (continued)
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/09/11
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, John W. Eaton, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Michael D Godfrey, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, John W. Eaton, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Michael D Godfrey, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Philip Nienhuis, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Michael D Godfrey, 2012/09/12
- OT: ML2012b [WAS: Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000], Philip Nienhuis, 2012/09/12
- Re: OT: ML2012b [WAS: Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000], Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso, 2012/09/13
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000,
Dmitri A. Sergatskov <=
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/09/12
- Re: imag () function detail regarding -0.0000, Michael D Godfrey, 2012/09/11