not-a-number's

[Mischa Baars]

On 01/16/2013 01:04 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 6:54 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
> ]
>> And indeed apparently the answer then is '2'. However, I don't think
>> this is correct. If that means that there is an error in the C
>> specification, then there probably is an error in the specification.
>
> The C specification seems perfectly reasonable to me (in fact it is
> rather familiar that x != x is a standard test for something being
> a NaN. The fact that you for unclear reasons don't like the C spec
> does not mean it is wrong!
>
And as I have said before: if you are satisfied with the answer '2', 
then so be it and you keep the compiler the way it is, personally I'm am 
not able to accept changes to the sources anyway. I don't think it is 
the right answer though.

Mischa.