Re: lib/45372: A bug in pow(3)

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR lib/45372; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: lib/45372: A bug in pow(3)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:21:36 +0200

 On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:00:07AM +0000, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
 >  Yes, in libm(3).
 
 We don't have libm(3). Which do you mean?
 
 >  >  Which standard defines that?
 >  
 >  IEEE.
 
 Ok. I also found open group saying so in
 http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pow.html
 
 >  It is wrong. There is little room for interpretation in the standards. 
 >  Note also that Linux and other operating systems have this right.
 
 I still disagree mathematically, but I agree that we should follow the
 standard.
  Thomas