John Maddock wrote:
Johan Råde wrote:
What is going on here? Error in <limits>? That would not be the first time.
I don't know, if that's the Intel/linux failures it's optimizer related, the test passes without the optimizations cranked up.
If you have a new revision with fixed isnan logic I'll test them again.
John.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Here is a new version, with a pinch of paranoia added. There are no floating point comparisons at all, except for a few == 0 and != 0. Therefore I expect it to be immune against optimizing compilers. (I have added a cpp file to avoid ODR violations. It may eventually be possible to remove the cpp file, if we can turn the constants into compile time constants. I bit of ifdef logic will be needed for that.) (This version does not undefine any macros either.) --Johan