Christos Zoulas wrote:

> > 
> >        union __infinity_u {
> >                unsigned char val[8];
> >                double dummy;
> >        };
> >        extern __const union __infinity_u __infinity;
> >        #define HUGE_VAL        (*(__const double *)(__const void *)&__infinity)
> 
> I don't see why we need to have more than two union types. One for double
> and one for float.

Yes, true.  So "__double_u" and "__single_u" sound reasonable?  What
about "long double", or that format not well defined?

Simon.
--
Simon Burge                            <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD CDs, Support and Service:    http://www.wasabisystems.com/