unnormal Intel 80-bit long doubles and isnanl

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 11/24/20 7:46 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Which is the currently take from gcc developers on this semantic change of
> __builtin_isnanl? Are they considering current behavior of non classifying
> the 'unnormal' as NAN the expected behavior and waiting glibc to follow
> it or are they willing to align with glibc behavior?

The gcc ml is also in cc (apologies to those getting 2-3 copies of 
this!) so I'm hoping to get feedback from both communities to arrive and 
a consensus.

gcc currently considers unnormals as NaN.  I think that is the right 
behaviour and would like glibc to align with that but before making 
such a proposal for glibc, I wanted to make sure that this gcc behaviour 
is defined because currently there is nothing that makes that clear.

Siddhesh